Liverpool FC Forum

in the 70`s every country was in the same boat, some of the thatcherites on here try to make out that we were an industrial basket case but we were nowhere as bad as some other nations that are regarded as industrial powerhouses now.
look at japan, in the 70`s japanese products were seen as a joke, cars like datsuns were known as cheap, tacky rustbuckets, their motorbikes were the same and japanese electronic goods were almost guaranteed to fail. they had a terrible reputation.
did the japanese government give up? did they write off their industry? no they didnt.
they all pulled together, they spent a fortune on R&D, their CEO`s ate their lunch with the lads on the shop floor and pretty soon they were seen as world leaders.
in 1983 honda joined F1, by the end of the decade the top teams like williams and mclaren (and drivers like senna and prost) were using their engines to dominate motorsport, it was the same story with motorbikes - susuki, kawazaki and honda (names that were a laughing stock a few years before) now totally dominated that sport.
their electronics firms, once the butt of many a joke, became world leaders with the likes of JVC, Hitachi and Panasonic leading the way.
countries like germany and japan proved that you could still be an industrial powerhouse and pay good wages just as long as you made quality goods, but that means investing in those industries, something thatcher wasnt prepared to do.
the country that practically invented industry threw it`s own down the toilet in favour of the beancounters, the same beancounters that have turned the city of london into a corrupt nest of vipers that launders money for mexican drug barons, breaks economic sanctions on rogue states and `adjusts` libor rates, not to mention virtually bring down western civillisation.

The difference is countries like Japan improved but managed to keep the costs down - they didnt have unions demanding more and more money for a product that wasnt improving.

If the industries were thriving and making money then no government will close it down - Japan werent losing "state funds" by the millions regardless of "reputation" of product.

Our coal was no better than others but was more expensive

Our cars were no better but were more expensive

Etc

They may have been struggling, but did they need to be absolutely destroyed without regard for the workers involved?

As has been pointed out, throughout Europe, countries were going through the same problems with their manufacturing and industrial concerns, but the approach of their governments was very different.

Thatcher's approach was to eliminate the unions power by destroying the industry, without a single thought about the fallout from such a move.

Extremely simplistic and utterly devastating.

Like I said the way she went about it was wrong but either the workers and unions find a way to produce the coal or cars or steel cheaper for the same standard , reduce their wages or the industry would have ruined the country.

Other countries didnt have unions with unrealistic demands that were beyond sustainable for the country. Something had to give - the reason why the industry and country was in such a bad way was because of people like Scargill and his unions. If Labour had stood up to them earlier and refused to bow down to their demands then the country wouldn't have been in such a bad state

Did you know that unions got the coal miners to go in strike during WW2 !! People were out fighting for the country and the unions wanted better pay !! Selfish purely selfish.

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:54 pm wrote:The difference is countries like Japan improved but managed to keep the costs down - they didnt have unions demanding more and more money for a product that wasnt improving.

If the industries were thriving and making money then no government will close it down - Japan werent losing "state funds" by the millions regardless of "reputation" of product.

Our coal was no better than others but was more expensive

Our cars were no better but were more expensive

Etc

but our coal wasnt more expensive, i remember at the time it was said that our pits produced coal at £18 per tonne where as west germany (as it was then) produced it at £40 a tonne. yes it needed subsidising but so did practically every industry in the 70`s after the oil crisis, rampant inflation, stock market crash of 73/74 etc etc.
germany and japan arent capitalist paradises, they have strong unions and some of the best working conditions/workers welfare rules in the world, but the people in charge dont have an adverserial `us and them` attitude in those countries, they dont look at honest hard working men as `the enemy within`.

So why exactly were they running at such high losses - why were the industries unsustainable without the country having to pile millions upon millions into the industry to allow the unions to get the massive pay rises they demanded ( at times a pay rise of nearly 35% !!! ) - everyone else was struggling yet the unions demanded more.

The unions didnt care about the country - they were ruining it - they were draining every penny out of the coffers and the Labour government was allowing them to do it.

benny do you know why the unions asked for a big pay rise?
in the mid 70`s inflation was crippling (not just in britain but around the world) so the then chancellor dennis healy went to all the captains of industry, unions etc and asked for a 3 year pay freeze to get inflation under control. everyone agreed.
the british public went through terrific hardship in those 3 years as the ridiculously high inflation ate away at their stagnant wages (we are talking 20%+ here, over the 3 years the price of everything went through the roof).
at the end of the 3 years healy was very happy, inflation had dropped considerably, infact he was so happy with the results that he went to the prime minister jim callaghan and said if we do that for another 3 years plus the oil money which was going to start coming into the exchequer the country would be in fine shape in the early 80`s.
the problem was healy didnt realise how much the people were suffering, everyone and i mean everyone was really feeling the pinch, when the government announced that they were considering doing it for another 3 years everyone went nuts, the public felt healy had reneged on the deal so they wanted their pay rises back, that 30% was 4 years worth of pay rises.
everyone was raging with healy, not just the traditional bolshy industries but firemen, nurses even the clerks in the house of commons went on strike.

Yep people under the control of the unions wanted more money - pay rises that the country couldn't afford yet the unions didn't bother thinking of that. The military didn't get any pay rises but they didn't have a union - they just got on with their jobs covering for strikers - same again in the 2000's when the fireman when on strike - who covered the - the military.

Why did people in the public sector deserve pay rises when the country could afford such extreme demands - the private sector couldn't afford any pay rises at all and they struggled to get by.

I haven't had a pay rise in 4 years - even now civil servants hold the country to ransom and its disgusting - they are the modern day miners. Did the unions care about how these pay rises were going to be paid ? From the pockets of the British public in higher taxes - but then they would complain about that - so they expected it all -lower inflation, higher wages yet lower taxes ignoring the fact that the industry they were working in was working to million pound losses each year - losses that couldn't be covered by the country unless the British public paid for it.

One day the unions will actually take responsibility for their actions that caused the problems during the 70's and 80's- but I doubt it because they are too arrogant and twisted with bitterness towards a political party that they believe should have carried on letting them bully them.

I have had to cover for too many public sector strikes in my time - and it's always down to greed .

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:40 pm wrote:Yep people under the control of the unions wanted more money - pay rises that the country couldn't afford yet the unions didn't bother thinking of that. The military didn't get any pay rises but they didn't have a union - they just got on with their jobs covering for strikers - same again in the 2000's when the fireman when on strike - who covered the - the military.

Why did people in the public sector deserve pay rises when the country could afford such extreme demands - the private sector couldn't afford any pay rises at all and they struggled to get by.

I haven't had a pay rise in 4 years - even now civil servants hold the country to ransom and its disgusting - they are the modern day miners. Did the unions care about how these pay rises were going to be paid ? From the pockets of the British public in higher taxes - but then they would complain about that - so they expected it all -lower inflation, higher wages yet lower taxes ignoring the fact that the industry they were working in was working to million pound losses each year - losses that couldn't be covered by the country unless the British public paid for it.

One day the unions will actually take responsibility for their actions that caused the problems during the 70's and 80's- but I doubt it because they are too arrogant and twisted with bitterness towards a political party that they believe should have carried on letting them bully them.

I have had to cover for too many public sector strikes in my time - and it's always down to greed .

greed? your having a f##king laugh arent you benny? your defending thatcher and calling the other side greedy?
and by the way you should have more respect for trade unions, do you know all these freedoms that we all enjoy today? do you think the ruling classes just handed them over out of the goodness of their own hearts?
trade unions were behind practically every progressive step of the last 150 years, everything from votes for men, votes for women, old age pensions, the NHS, unemployment benefit, the 5 day working week, 8 hour days, safe working environments, sick pay, holidays, racial equality, the minimum wage, maternity leave etc etc
and guess what, the other side fought tooth and nail against most of those changes. if it was up to them we`d all be working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year going up chimneys for a pittance.

I have worked in the military for 22 years - the unions have done sweet FA for my working life - but I have been there to cover their ***** when the greedy ***** have gone on strike.

8 hour days !! That must be a joke.

But that's the unions for you - maximum wage for minimum effort and out the door as quick as possible.

Only one set of people when on strike when the country was at war - and that set of people where controlled by the unions.

One day the unions will tell us exactly where they expect the money to come from to pay their wage demands every decade they strike.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:09 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:54 pm wrote:The difference is countries like Japan improved but managed to keep the costs down - they didnt have unions demanding more and more money for a product that wasnt improving.

If the industries were thriving and making money then no government will close it down - Japan werent losing "state funds" by the millions regardless of "reputation" of product.

Our coal was no better than others but was more expensive

Our cars were no better but were more expensive

Etc

but our coal wasnt more expensive, i remember at the time it was said that our pits produced coal at £18 per tonne where as west germany (as it was then) produced it at £40 a tonne. yes it needed subsidising but so did practically every industry in the 70`s after the oil crisis, rampant inflation, stock market crash of 73/74 etc etc.
germany and japan arent capitalist paradises, they have strong unions and some of the best working conditions/workers welfare rules in the world, but the people in charge dont have an adverserial `us and them` attitude in those countries, they dont look at honest hard working men as `the enemy within`.

And at that time UK miners were some of the best paid workers in Europe - still not enough, rather they'd let millions of families go cold and dark for their self serving interests.

One day the unions will actually take responsibility for their actions that caused the problems during the 70's and 80's   

No they won't. That's one of the reasons we'll struggle to emulate German conditions, their Unions are responsible.

Our industries were basket cases way before Thatcher came along.

tonyeh » Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:59 pm wrote:They may have been struggling, but did they need to be absolutely destroyed without regard for the workers involved?

As has been pointed out, throughout Europe, countries were going through the same problems with their manufacturing and industrial concerns, but the approach of their governments was very different.

Thatcher's approach was to eliminate the unions power by destroying the industry, without a single thought about the fallout from such a move.

Extremely simplistic and utterly devastating.

Tonyeh, no one will dispute the whole of Europe was going thru the mire at that time and some governments such as the socialist French one were handing out cash on street corners however, one simple difference, labour laws in the UK allowed the unions to become so powerful that foreign investment was publically stated as NOT coming to the UK because investors were scared of the potential downside, preferring to locate to other countries. So real and perceived threats were holding our economy back.

Its not only whether we were competitive but due to the heavily publicized industrial action, whether we were a viable investment location and we were not - and that's what needed to be changed - ie change labour law and break the grip of the unions.

'morning Comrade Yakka.

I know folks 'want' to blame Maggie for their woes but lets look again at the bigger picture. The general malaise throughout the world started with the 1973 oil crisis which led to the 1973–1974 stock market crash. Bear in mind the United States and GB had only come off the Gold Standard in August 1971 (!). The resultatant depreciation of the USD$ and Sterling led other industrialized nations to follow suit and the price of oil quadrupled as a result.  The UK did not have north sea oil at this stage, all our oil was imported. The 1979 oil crisis occurred in the wake of the Iranian Revolution when production was greatly curtailed and exports suspended. Oil exports resumed at a lower volume pushing prices up, widespread panic resulted added to by the U.S. to embargo Iranian imports driving the price far higher than would be expected under normal circumstances. In April 1979 the US deregulated of oil prices leading to even higher prices, then in 1980, following the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War, oil production in Iran nearly stopped and Iraq's oil production was severely cut as well.

By the early 70's we had the 3 day week etc.. I remember eating my dinner at night by candlelight, I remember Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers' Union (born in Garston by the way) and a confirmed Soviet spy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... years.html), Joe Gormley, Red Robbo spewing their hatred and anarchy on tv. Yes we had 20% inflation and it appeared we were in a downward spiral and we needed a leader to lift us out of it not trade union militants to push us further towards disaster.

I remember in 1976 Britain faced financial crisis and the Labour government applied to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a loan of $4 billion the first and only time we've had to do so. IMF negotiators insisted on deep cuts in public expenditure greatly affecting economic and social policy. That wasn't Maggie's fault was it? But revealingly the unions didn't accept the concept of cuts and took on the Labour government.  Harold Wilson was warned in 1975 that Britain's economy faced "possible wholesale domestic liquidation" according to Cabinet papers. One minister told the Labour prime minister there could be constitutional crisis if inflation continued to rise.

Inflation peaked in 1975 and by 1976 Dennis Healey was telling the IMF that "the social contract" with the trade unions had reduced the average increase in earnings from 27.6% in 1975 to 13.9% in 1976.  He also warned of the risk of a "possible wholesale domestic liquidation starting with a notable bankruptcy... The magnitude of this threat is quite incalculable".

"The strategy proposed by the chancellor is bound to be seen by the Labour movement and the whole country as a policy of despair, representing an admission of failure of our economic policy," said Tony Benn another left wing traitor. Hugh Scanlon, leader of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, was among those who said his union could not go along with anything which cut its members' standard of living. And Jack Jones our commie mate from the TGWU warned that workers' wages were already suffering through cuts in overtime and short time working.

So Red Yakka, this was the situation that greeted Maggie when she took power. And you prefer to quote Japanese Datsun cars and Kawasaki motorbikes. Lordie lordie, that suggests you hadn't realised the extent of our chaos under the Labour government in the mid-70's less than 10 years after Macmillan had told the nation 'you've never had it so good'.  Triumph/BSA was going out of business as was BL, Triumph had become a cooperative after the usual sit ins, and Red Yobbo was strangling BL. What would the Japanese government done faced with this kind of anarchy. Swords out boys.

What other industry do you want to talk about? What manufacturing industry COULD survive in the above mentioned scenario? and why would Johnnie Foreigner invest in the UK? Crumbling economy, crumbling financial system propped up by IMF loans and Red unions with feckin' baubles on top taking determined action to destroy the economic and political system for the Russian paymasters? And Scargill was still only warming up for the main act.

And by the way, didn't the binmen let all the rubbish pile up in the streets until the place stank and disease spread? And didn't Liverpool undertakers refuse to bury dead bodies?

We were lucky to avoid civil war. Franco decided it was worth one but at terrible, terrible cost that still lingers on today.

Hence Margaret Thatcher got a State funeral, given by those who understood the magnitude of what she had achieved. All said and done... the greatest act of stupidity was the Argentine invasion of the Falklands.... what a wonderful distraction that boosted her ratings, won her another election and sealed the fate of the unions and ran the left wing out of Westminster for good. Thanks Galtieri son, you were a cr@p general but you played a massive party in our history.

PS: this talk of beancounters and Mexican drug barrens... y'know.....  Economic and politics is fluid and I accept that what is correct today can be abused tomorrow. So what we need is legislation and accountability. 13 years during which your mate Tony could of course, addressed that any time he wished.

Anyway, feck the Japs, that are we going to do to make THIS country great again? Come on Pinko, lets have some ideas, lets come up with a positive plan to return us to the days of Harold Macmillian and 'you've never had it so good'.

By the way, Supermac was a northerner (Stockton) and a Tory who during his time as prime minister average living standards steadily rose while numerous social reforms were carried out such as the 1956 Clean Air Act, the 1957 Housing Act, the 1960 Offices Act, the 1960 Noise Abatement Act, the Factories Act 1961, the introduction of a graduated pension scheme to provide an additional income to retirees, the establishment of a Child’s Special Allowance for the orphaned children of divorced parents, and a reduction in the standard work week from 48 to 42 hours.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:08 pm wrote:greed? your having a f##king laugh arent you benny? your defending thatcher and calling the other side greedy?
and by the way you should have more respect for trade unions, do you know all these freedoms that we all enjoy today? do you think the ruling classes just handed them over out of the goodness of their own hearts?
trade unions were behind practically every progressive step of the last 150 years, everything from votes for men, votes for women, old age pensions, the NHS, unemployment benefit, the 5 day working week, 8 hour days, safe working environments, sick pay, holidays, racial equality, the minimum wage, maternity leave etc etc
and guess what, the other side fought tooth and nail against most of those changes. if it was up to them we`d all be working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year going up chimneys for a pittance.

You know, I've never understood the nonsensical attitude that some in Britain (and elsewhere) have regarding unions. It's borders on the absurd. Sure, they had too much power over political decisions for a period of time and that needed to be dealt with. I don't think there is any rational thinking person out there that would disagree with that, but the idea that unions, in general, are a bad thing is simply small minded.

As you correctly point out, unions are responsible for a lot of the positive conditions that a many workers work under these days and as I look around those workers rights are being erroded. Industrialists and multi-nationals certainly aren't going to give a tinkers cuss about the people they employ. To them, they are just numbers. A means to an end and something that can be discarded when their use is no longer desirable.

Without the changes in employment (both in attitude and practice), some of which unions are responsible for, working life would be a very different prospect for everyone.

It's absolutely incredible the utter ***** that spouted sometimes, regarding unions.

You know what, looking at the strikes of the 70's and the unemployment of the 80's, I'm inclined to think that worrying about not having a bit of coal for a while is far more preferable to worrying about not having a job again.