Thatcher took on the Unions....

[RadioRaheem84]

It seems like all of the accounts have Thatcher look like a hero for taking on poor families and workers not wanting to lose their jobs! What was the real story? It doesn't seem like people can really be all for the breaking up of union power and the privatization of the mines.


Anyone have any info on this? Can offer links of docs or articles?

[rednordman]

Sometimes I look at my own nation and can see a very anal sort of backwardness about it. It isnt our fault exactly, its just been pushed on us from above.

Anyone who thinks that it was a tremendous thing that the Unions lost, needs to go and live in the former mining communities for a while. Sure, they still may support Thatcher, just at least they will be able to understand that sometimes it isnt as black and white like the biast media and conservatives feed us all the time.

[RadioRaheem84]

I can hardly find a single doc or segment that portrays the unions as being in the right. All the others say is that the Unions were these big bad monopolies of labor that controlled all the workers and forced them to strike. Thatcher is looked on as a major hero for breaking up their "power".

Even Christopher Hitchens now looks at Thatcher with reverence for breaking up the unions. The whole "taking on the unions" is all I read.

[rednordman]

Like I said it isnt all black and white from either perspective. The unions where not untouchable, and where in the wrong on somethings, it just the way they where portrayed, was quite frankly appauling. And I think time has told too. We are not really better off for it.

I think for the most part, it is more about showing the underlying but obvious, class hatred within our society. Something that has never ceased to go away imo.

Thus, when you hear about the unions getting destroyed, what it really is all about is the immense euphoria that the tories felt, by destroying the working class and putting us all in 'our place'.

Again I will admit that the unions themselves where not faultless, but the mannor in which M Thatcher and the conservatives went about their victory was not simply and attack on Unions, but an attack on society itself. Thus in a sense, I just think that for the ruling classes, the unions where just a metaphore for society itself. No this dosent have anything to do with Thatchers 'No such thing as society' speech either. Its just the way in which it was done, and as you have mentioned, revered afterwards in the modern media, to the detriment of the miners communities afterwards.

[RadioRaheem84]

Like I said it isnt all black and white from either perspective. The unions where not untouchable, and where in the wrong on somethings, it just the way they where portrayed, was quite frankly appauling. And I think time has told too. We are not really better off for it.

I don't get it. What did the unions do that even remotely made them stick out as the bad guys?

[Patchd]

I bought a copy of this (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=328449980&blogId=515924207) at the last Anarchist bookfair, it has some good stuff on it. To be fair, up north, a lot of people are still very sympathetic towards the miners' side during the strike. A number of them even share disagreements with what Scargill did as head of the NUM, which ultimately saw a betrayal of a number of mine workers, most of whom were in the NUM, whether the strike won or lost.

There are a lot of lessons to be learnt from the miners' strike, especially from how communities functioned and organised themselves during those 12 months, usually when families lived with only a limited income provided by the union.

[rednordman]

I don't get it. What did the unions do that even remotely made them stick out as the bad guys?They definitly where not the bad guys. That and the good post by Palachiov.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well what did they do that earned the ire of the establishment media? What were their faults?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Anyone who thinks that it was a tremendous thing that the Unions lost, needs to go and live in the former mining communities for a while. Sure, they still may support Thatcher, just at least they will be able to understand that sometimes it isnt as black and white like the biast media and conservatives feed us all the time.

I'm from the North and my grandfather knew lots of miners. I've never heard of them say anything good about Thatcher, nor have they said anything bad about the unions. Thatcher wasn't a hero, coming to deliver freedom to the workers who were 'controlled' by the mean unions. The only reason she fought against them is because she wanted to make sure the working class were powerless and the unions were her biggest obstacle. I'm not doing a very good job of explaining this. Still, I know what I'm trying to say.

[rednordman]

Well what did they do that earned the ire of the establishment media? What were their faults?They were working class, and didnt want to become unemployed in areas that already had problems with it. Simple as that.

Seriously though, it all comes down to this almost inherant dis-trust of the working classes. Like we all sceamed to 'take the nation back into the stone age' and 'hold the nation to ransom'. Its all bullshit, but when a rich person does something wrong, they get away with it (Billion pound bonuses anyone?) and even lauded. When its on the other side of the scale, working class people are treated with brute contempt. And are considered dirty scrowngers.

[rednordman]

I'm from the North and my grandfather knew lots of miners. I've never heard of them say anything good about Thatcher, nor have they said anything bad about the unions. Thatcher wasn't a hero, coming to deliver freedom to the workers who were 'controlled' by the mean unions. The only reason she fought against them is because she wanted to make sure the working class were powerless and the unions were her biggest obstacle. I'm not doing a very good job of explaining this. Still, I know what I'm trying to say.Absolutly, You explained it well. I didnt actually mean the miners where in the wrong as such, just everyone made mistakes and like palachinov said, there was a lot of lessons to be learnt.

The miners where almost 100% in the good, whereas M Thatcher was not at all in the good (and I didnt mean to make anyone think that this is what i was implying either:)).

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Oh no, I didn't think that's what you were implying! It wasn't really directed towards you, just to the people who support/ed Thatcher's actions. ;)

[cyu]

Thatcher took on the Unions


I wouldn't quite say it like that. Instead maybe, "Thatcher kowtows to capitalists; capitalists install her as intermediary between themselves and employees; capitalists can then club employees with impunity by using Thatcher's organization."

[RadioRaheem84]

I wouldn't quite say it like that. Instead maybe, "Thatcher kowtows to capitalists; capitalists install her as intermediary between themselves and employees; capitalists can then club employees with impunity by using Thatcher's organization."

You're right. Thatcher "taking on the unions" is something I keep hearing in the media as one of her great accomplishments.

The reports I've read have Scargill look like a Stalinist. The inflation of the Labour Years was blamed on the unions. They were also blamed for monopolizing the workforce. I mean the list goes on with the capitalist grievances against the workers.

It really pissed me off when I read that families were starving because of their decision to strike. This was blamed on the unions too! But they were striking to not lose their jobs so they could work to buy food and eat!

[RadioRaheem84]

Also, maybe I just have a different impression of the UK but I had no idea it was THAT class divided! If this happened in the US it would be the breaking point between the conservatives and the working class. You mean to tell me that people were really supportive of Thatcher as some sort of hero of the UK for taking on poor working class families and their right to strike? How bad are the upper class in the UK? At least the upper class in the US attempt to appear to be "for the workers and democracy, yada yada".

[Robocommie]

Yeah, though there's also a lot of grumbling in the US from the right wing about the unions. Time and time again you hear people talking about how the unions "hurt American competitiveness."

Seems to me that what this is basically arguing for is a reduction in worker's salaries and safety regulations, so we can have lower corporate overhead and then the companies will come back and open factories. You know, like in China, where everything is so rosy.

The fact is, the defense of capitalism is a set of things you're told from childhood that you hold to be undeniably true. Like, hard work brings reward. Socialism is a great idea "on paper." That capitalism is the only system that works because people are inherently selfish. Things that perhaps have a kernel of truth in them somewhere, but have been promoted into ludicrous justifications for any number of forms of heartless right-wing pettiness.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

The fact is, the defense of capitalism is a set of things you're told from childhood that you hold to be undeniably true. Like, hard work brings reward. Socialism is a great idea "on paper." That capitalism is the only system that works because people are inherently selfish. Things that perhaps have a kernel of truth in them somewhere, but have been promoted into ludicrous justifications for any number of forms of heartless right-wing pettiness.

These are all so true. America was founded on the idea that if you work hard you'll succeed - the American Dream. Promoting a work ethic and ambition isn't in itself a bad thing, but it goes without saying that the idea you mentioned means that those who aren't wealthy obviously don't deserve to be because they haven't worked hard enough. And that's a dangerous and highly incorrect belief.

I still hear every day that socialism is 'a good idea on paper but it would never work because people are too selfish'. What a lazy, pathetic excuse for not trying to create a better society!


Also, maybe I just have a different impression of the UK but I had no idea it was THAT class divided! If this happened in the US it would be the breaking point between the conservatives and the working class. You mean to tell me that people were really supportive of Thatcher as some sort of hero of the UK for taking on poor working class families and their right to strike? How bad are the upper class in the UK? At least the upper class in the US attempt to appear to be "for the workers and democracy, yada yada".

Oh yes. But class in the UK goes beyond being about wealth and power as well. You can have millions of pounds and still be perceived as working class and 'rough', and you can have almost no money but be seen as noble and aristocratic. It's probably one of the only places where you can still (generally) tell people's class from their accent. Not always, but quite often.

[cleef]

the one argument i repeatedly hear for why the unions were seen as the bad guys is because "they had gained way to much power and if you were not a part of the union it was impossible for you to get a job"

[rednordman]

I still hear every day that socialism is 'a good idea on paper but it would never work because people are too selfish'. What a lazy, pathetic excuse for not trying to create a better society!Sorry to go of topic, but on all, I actually think that time has proven that in general, socialism does indeed work.

Ok, people may moan at the unions being too powerfull etc, but lets be honest here, where would we all be if we never had them?

How would things have gotten better if they had of gone for good?

I certainly dont believe that buisnesses would have been altuistic by their own nature.

Also it must be noted how important wealth distribuition is within almost all the wealthiest countries (not that wealth distruibuition in itself is particularily socialistic, just that is what most other people think).

[ls]

It seems like all of the accounts have Thatcher look like a hero for taking on poor families and workers not wanting to lose their jobs! What was the real story? It doesn't seem like people can really be all for the breaking up of union power and the privatization of the mines.


Anyone have any info on this? Can offer links of docs or articles?

Sure, US republicans love their signed autographs of Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev etc, they love what she, Reagan, Pinochet and so on did.

Remember how similar they were, Reagan did all kinds of disgusting things, one of the most outrageous is the sacking of all the air traffic controllers. But yeah, Thatcher did the same things, denying workers' whole families state benefits so that they suffered like never, ever before, she did great propaganda things like try and say the IRA and the miners were both the same terrorists "the enemy within" as she termed the miners.

The union of course did what it does best, acted as a servant of capitalism and laid down to what Thatcher wanted, so yeah all that shit about how Arthur was a "true class warrior" is just that, shit. Some people of course never learn; some people today fetishise Bob Crow as being just like Arthur Scargill a "true class warrior leading the workers", but actually the strength of the RMT comes from the rank-and-file workers and their solidarity, their forming committees to be able to determine what they need and want.

[Frantz Fanon]

she was a wanker and i hope she dies a slow and painfull death....
now heres jim with the weather:)

[cyu]

she was a wanker and i hope she dies a slow and painfull death....


Pesonally I would rather see her policies mocked and ridiculed than anything be done about her biological health.


now heres jim with the weather:)

I couldn't help but laugh at this part though :D

[Uncle Ho]

Also, maybe I just have a different impression of the UK but I had no idea it was THAT class divided! If this happened in the US it would be the breaking point between the conservatives and the working class. You mean to tell me that people were really supportive of Thatcher as some sort of hero of the UK for taking on poor working class families and their right to strike? How bad are the upper class in the UK? At least the upper class in the US attempt to appear to be "for the workers and democracy, yada yada".

Well, assuming that Britain still has a landed gentry which is given (some) control over their governmental affairs AND they are quite proud of this, I'd say their upper class is easily more entrenched than any other in the first world.

[Hit The North]

One policy of the Thatcher government which found favour amongst many workers was the right to buy their council houses at very good rates. Most of my relatives at the time took up this offer and were relieved to be free of local authority control. Thatcher's rhetoric was to create a "property owning democracy". She reasoned that if people owned their own homes then they would be more integrated into the system of capitalism and less likely to strike.

Btw, the average wage of workers declined more quickly under the Callaghan Labour government than it did under Thatcher. Of course, there were far more workers out of work under her rule than previously.

[cleef]

she was a wanker and i hope she dies a slow and painfull death....
now heres jim with the weather:)

a hicks fan huh?

I'll be attending her funeral when she dies like many other people just to make sure that the ***** is really dead :cool:

[RadioRaheem84]

One policy of the Thatcher government which found favour amongst many workers was the right to buy their council houses at very good rates. Most of my relatives at the time took up this offer and were relieved to be free of local authority control. Thatcher's rhetoric was to create a "property owning democracy". She reasoned that if people owned their own homes then they would be more integrated into the system of capitalism and less likely to strike.

Btw, the average wage of workers declined more quickly under the Callaghan Labour government than it did under Thatcher. Of course, there were far more workers out of work under her rule than previously.

You could say wages for workers froze for most workers in America during the Carter years too that doesn't mean the wholesale dismantling of our productive economy happened during this time. Reagan and Thatcher oversaw the worst economic decisions a country could make for their workers. They decimated the working class and used the inflationary period of the late 70s as an excuse.

[cyu]

Thatcher's rhetoric was to create a "property owning democracy". She reasoned that if people owned their own homes then they would be more integrated into the system of capitalism and less likely to strike.


Personally I would have called her bluff and encouraged employees to assume democratic control (ie. ownership) of their places of work and tell their bosses to take a hike. Somehow I don't think she would have liked that kind of "property owning democracy" much.

[Angry Young Man]

Well what did they do that earned the ire of the establishment media? What were their faults?

I bolded because the media of the establishment reflect what the establishment wants the public to understand. You really answered your own question there.

[ComradeMan]

I have heard it said by people who were there at the time that during the early 1970's the Unions in Britain may have gone over the top as a result of their own power politics and their dynamic with Labour governments and councils etc. This resulted in strike after strike, power blackouts, rubbish mounting up in the streets and the general disgruntlement of the British people.

In the early 1980's, Mrs Thatcher- coming off the back of the Falklands Conflict played this disgruntlement to her advantage and used it to break the back of the Unions. Let's face it, the Conservatives have always been in the pockets of the City and the financial sector - i.e. on the side of the employers and never had a good relationship with the Unions. Let us also not forget that Churchill himself turned the army on striking miners in the 1930's.

During the 1970's Britain went though an industrial collapse and many British people seem to blame the Unions for pricing their workers out of the market, I have heard this said of the Liverpool docks for example. Now, whether this is true or not and whatever the real economic reasons behind it are- the perception is there and for a good while whole swathes of the British population were turned against the Unions.

Take a walk around the former industrial areas of Britain today, not just the North but also the old East End of London... If only hindsight were foresight eh?

[Hit The North]

I have heard it said by people who were there at the time that during the early 1970's the Unions in Britain may have gone over the top as a result of their own power politics and their dynamic with Labour governments and councils etc.

As someone who was there at the time I can tell you that the nation was divided over Thatcher. All of her governments won elections on less than fifty percent of the vote. Moreover, Labour's last government in the 1970s was responsible for pushing through the first cuts in public spending and were in conflict with the majority of trade union members, rather than in partnership with them. It was the unpopularity of Labour which accounts for Thatcher's election victories, rather than any real enthusiasm for her policies. When she launched her attacks against the big industrial unions, the Labour Party, true to form, refused to back the workers.


In the early 1980's, Mrs Thatcher- coming off the back of the Falklands Conflict played this disgruntlement to her advantage and used it to break the back of the Unions.


In terms of trade union membership, 1979 saw the high point of union membership with a density of 54% (the highest its ever been in Britain - today it runs at about 28%). So rather than the trade unions being unpopular they were more popular than ever. Thatcher's success in her struggle against the unions was largely the result of ineptitude amongst the TUC and the restrictive legalism which they embody. Widening and deepening solidarity would have seen Thatcher's attacks fail.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


As someone who was there at the time I can tell you that the nation was divided over Thatcher. All of her governments won elections on less than fifty percent of the vote.

In fact, she never won more than 34% of those eligible to vote:


Thatcher won the 1979 election with just 43.9 percent of the vote. At the time, this was the third lowest vote for any British prime minister since the Second World War.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17741

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1979#Results

But this was on a 76% turnout, making her share 34% of total voters.

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/geresults.html

The rest of what you say is 100% accurate, though!

[ComradeMan]

As someone who was there at the time I can tell you that the nation was divided over Thatcher. All of her governments won elections on less than fifty percent of the vote. Moreover, Labour's last government in the 1970s was responsible for pushing through the first cuts in public spending and were in conflict with the majority of trade union members, rather than in partnership with them. It was the unpopularity of Labour which accounts for Thatcher's election victories, rather than any real enthusiasm for her policies. When she launched her attacks against the big industrial unions, the Labour Party, true to form, refused to back the workers.



In terms of trade union membership, 1979 saw the high point of union membership with a density of 54% (the highest its ever been in Britain - today it runs at about 28%). So rather than the trade unions being unpopular they were more popular than ever. Thatcher's success in her struggle against the unions was largely the result of ineptitude amongst the TUC and the restrictive legalism which they embody. Widening and deepening solidarity would have seen Thatcher's attacks fail.


I don't know really as I was only a child at the time so I am going off what various people have said to me.

Nevertheless, be careful with the statistic as far as unions are concerned- remember that at the end of the 1970's there had been massive deindustrialisation. What did union membership at 54% represent in terms of a) a total of the workforce b) a total of the electorate?

As for the rest, well I suppose there are many opinions. My grandmother was a union shopfloor steward but was coming into retirement at that time. She always seemed to be more critical of the unions themselves than of Thatcher- running along the lines of the unions shot themselves in the foot and allowed Thatcher to do what she did.

Remember too that facts like union membership and economic forces are not generally well-known facts. The perception is often more useful- or harmful, than the actual truth.

[ls]

Remember too that facts like union membership and economic forces are not generally well-known facts. The perception is often more useful- or harmful, than the actual truth.

It's been said a million times on here before ;) but the french aren't very unionised.. look how militant they [still] are. No union membership does not necessarily = no militancy, it's pointless to look at things in a b/w way like that, not that that is what you claimed, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

French workers are not held back in such a way by conservative union machinery, since the latter has a much looser grip on the majority of French workers.

[cyu]

the french aren't very unionised.. look how militant they [still] are. No union membership does not necessarily = no militancy


When you have a history that includes guillotining the head of state, I'd expect a bit of militancy =]

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Most working class people in this country (aside from those eccentric 'Working Class Tories') view Thatcher with hatred, especially for what she did to the Unions, and inparticular the miners.

I do have to say though, that whilst I would implicitly support the Miners' cause, and the Unions, Scargill is not the socialist hero that some portray him to be. Over the years he has become somewhat anachronistic and out of touch with the workers' movement.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Indeed, as Frankie Boyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_Boyle) said on TV about her state funeral: "The only question about her burial is whether we should wait until she is dead...".

And then there's this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmmomV-ax-s

[ComradeMan]

Most working class people in this country (aside from those eccentric 'Working Class Tories') view Thatcher with hatred, especially for what she did to the Unions, and inparticular the miners.

I do have to say though, that whilst I would implicitly support the Miners' cause, and the Unions, Scargill is not the socialist hero that some portray him to be. Over the years he has become somewhat anachronistic and out of touch with the workers' movement.


The problem is that a hell of a lot of working class people (along with many other "classes") in Britain also hate New Labour for selling them out.... as it is perceived.

What happened to student grants? Did Labour bring them back? No they finished off the job.

The problem was summed up a couple of years ago when there was talk of an election after Blair stepped down, in saying that the mainstream political parties are all much of a muchness and the party leaders are all versions of each other, i.e. Brown admiring Thatcher, Cameron admiring Blair ("I wanted to be UK President!!!") and the Liberal Leader...I forget his name (isn't that typical!!!) somewhere in between.

[Hit The North]

Nevertheless, be careful with the statistic as far as unions are concerned- remember that at the end of the 1970's there had been massive deindustrialisation. What did union membership at 54% represent in terms of a) a total of the workforce b) a total of the electorate?



Actually the massive deindustrialisation happened in the 1980s under the supervision of Thatcher.

The figures I'm quoting are for union density - that is, 54% of all workers who could be unionised were unionised. As a percentage of the electorate, I have no idea.


As for the rest, well I suppose there are many opinions. My grandmother was a union shopfloor steward but was coming into retirement at that time. She always seemed to be more critical of the unions themselves than of Thatcher- running along the lines of the unions shot themselves in the foot and allowed Thatcher to do what she did.Alleged trade union abuse certainly was part of the ideological offensive mounted by capital in the UK at this time. But in concrete terms the strategy was to abandon industrial manufacture as a busted flush, incapable of being internationally competitive, and replace it with a financial services economy which would give Britain a key role in the global economy and provide the basis for an expansion of credit-based consumerism (it's possibly not incidental that Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer and therefore was able to embrace such a petite bourgeois vision where the population of Britain are re-imagined as either bankers, shop-owners or customers.). The first half of the 80s was about slashing and burning the industrial sector: steel workers and miners driven to the edge of extinction and a refusal to give government money to help sustain the British car industry, pushed unemployment well over three million. This period resulted in some big battles with the unions and high social unrest in the inner cities, both of which were managed through a militarisation of the police force. The second half of the 80s were concerned with selling off state owned resources (privatisation) and expanding the tyranny of the free market into as many sectors of society as possible whilst deregulating the financial markets in order to stimulate entrepreneurship (i.e. creative ways of robbing ordinary people) and expand the private sector. This created a credit based boom in the late 80's which was unsustainable and crashed in 1992 (if not before - my memory fails me).

[RadioRaheem84]

The problem is that a hell of a lot of working class people (along with many other "classes") in Britain also hate New Labour for selling them out.... as it is perceived.

What happened to student grants? Did Labour bring them back? No they finished off the job.

The problem was summed up a couple of years ago when there was talk of an election after Blair stepped down, in saying that the mainstream political parties are all much of a muchness and the party leaders are all versions of each other, i.e. Brown admiring Thatcher, Cameron admiring Blair ("I wanted to be UK President!!!") and the Liberal Leader...I forget his name (isn't that typical!!!) somewhere in between.

The same thing happened in the US. Bill Clinton shifted the Democratic Party to the center-right and now the Democrats are almost indistinguishable from the Republicans. At least your nation is smart and bold enough to notice this. My nation still thinks the Democrats are a left wing party and those are just the supporters! The opposition thinks they're a socialist party! :lol:

The opposition is so strong in the United States that I really don't think that there is any hope. People fundamentally believe that socialism equals state control of everything, 1984-type government, and the elimination of democratic liberty. This is an almost religious belief among the older working and middle class people. Even the youngsters believe this tripe and think that its cool to be libertarian.

I used to think that there was hope for this country but after a while I started realizing that the opposition has done such a damaging job that there is no way a genuine leftist movement would help. When you have Joe the Plumber saying stuff like, " I wanna live in a democracy, not a socialist country" and half the country agreeing with him, that is the result of propaganda gone totally wrong. It has nearly destroyed the capabilities for rational thinking in this country. These people don't even have the basic foundation to debate issues.

I will probably move to Europe, OZ or Canada some day. This nation is finished.

[cyu]

The problem is that a hell of a lot of working class people (along with many other "classes") in Britain also hate New Labour for selling them out.... as it is perceived.



The capitalist-owned and controlled media would have never let any of them get elected if they weren't just pro-capitalists in leftist clothing.

[ComradeMan]

Not trying to gainsay you here but...

Actually the massive deindustrialisation happened in the 1980s under the supervision of Thatcher.


The East End Docks were finished by 1980. I suppose it depends what sector you look at specifically.
The manufacturing industry in Manchester had been in serious decline since the 1960's.
The Liverpool docks were in decline in the mid-70's.
The figures I'm quoting are for union density - that is, 54% of all workers who could be unionised were unionised. As a percentage of the electorate, I have no idea.

So 46%, almost half were not- to me that says that the Union movement must have had BIG problems.

[Hit The North]

Not trying to gainsay you here but...

Actually the massive deindustrialisation happened in the 1980s under the supervision of Thatcher.


The East End Docks were finished by 1980. I suppose it depends what sector you look at specifically.
The manufacturing industry in Manchester had been in serious decline since the 1960's.
The Liverpool docks were in decline in the mid-70's.



In global terms, British manufacturing had been in decline for most of the Twentieth Century. In terms of the post-WWII boom, since the early sixties. I think the main change was Thatcher's move from a commitment to use the state to financially support industry, reflecting a shift in economic policy direction toward replacing dependency on manufacture in favour of services.



The figures I'm quoting are for union density - that is, 54% of all workers who could be unionised were unionised. As a percentage of the electorate, I have no idea.

So 46%, almost half were not- to me that says that the Union movement must have had BIG problems.

Possibly your expectations are too high. 56% is the historical high-point for trade union membership in the UK.

[ComradeMan]

Some good points... Interesting to note the double standards of government here. When it's manufacturing industry they cannot intervene because of the hallowed concepts of free markets and no state control. Yet when the banks go down they can intervene with taxpayers money to save them in order to "steer us all through" the crisis. Funny that, isn't it?

[Hit The North]

Some good points... Interesting to note the double standards of government here. When it's manufacturing industry they cannot intervene because of the hallowed concepts of free markets and no state control. Yet when the banks go down they can intervene with taxpayers money to save them in order to "steer us all through" the crisis. Funny that, isn't it?

It's a question of priority for the economy. The system is fuelled by expanding credit (at least the UK one is), so the banks become crucial.

As for the state bailing out manufacturing, I'm not sure we should support that as state money is the result of millions of workers being taxed. We end up with the situation where the workers are not only forced to sell their labour power to the capitalists but they are also paying the capitalist to keep on buying it!

It's one thing to be exploited. But paying for it is a peculiar form of sadomasochism we should definitely not support.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's a question of priority for the economy. The system is fuelled by expanding credit (at least the UK one is), so the banks become crucial.

Not just in the UK. The US system was wholly dependent on it as that's all we had! A speculative economy was the only thing holding up this country as most of our production was shipped overseas.