George Galloway MP

[Herbert Anchovy]

Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:

A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.

During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.

It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.

I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .

Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .

We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .

The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .

The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .

The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .

I could never understand at the time  how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I  realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .

Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .

It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .

Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .

That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .

My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?

You’re right. I came down to London in 1982 after being laid off twice in 2 years. My old man pretty much forced me to do it as he could see the way things were going for towns like Donny. Overnight I went from a town where work was at a premium to one where I was quite literally able to name my price for any job that I wanted. You could walk onto any building site and be paid whatever you asked for. I’ve said it before; there was no early 80’s recession in the south east.

As you say, Essex man was a ‘thing’ down here and they exemplified everything that Thatcher stood for. It wasn’t just confined to them though. From my experience, the vast majority of people down here were, at best, apathetic about conditions in the north. At worst, they saw it as a price worth paying to keep the south prosperous. During that time I saw that England is fundamentally 2 separate nations, and that remains to this day.

Thatcher created the ‘enemy within’ with the unions and particularly the miners. It was the classic divide and conquer policy against the working classes. And it worked. At the time, almost all the blokes that I worked with were typical working class Tories. To them Socialism was akin to selling out to the Soviet Union.

Labour didn’t help themselves either during this period. They weren’t a credible opposition and spent too much time infighting rather than representing the very people who needed them.

All in all it was a very depressing time.

[scawsby steve]

"Sunak and Starmer are two cheeks of the same backside, and it's been well and truly spanked tonight".

Oratory genius. Well done George.

Rumours are carried by haters, spread by fools & accepted by idiots’.

You need to brush up on your semantics. The first part of that sentence isn't a rumour, it's an opinion. The second part is a fact.

Also, I'm neither an idiot, nor a fool.

You could have fooled me.

To be so besotted by danumdon’s post, you must be one or the other.

OK, Einstein, enamour us all with your pearls of wisdom. Tell us all in detail what is so wonderful about Starmer's Labour Party, and exactly what they're going to do differently to the Tories.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:

A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.

During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.

It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.

I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .

Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .

We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .

The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .

The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .

The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .

I could never understand at the time  how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I  realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .

Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .

It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .

Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .

That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .

My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?

Couple of excellent posts there.

HA. I had similar experiences with the Left in the 80s. More interested in ideological purity than the dirty job of actually winning power. One SWP member I knew told me he voted Tory all through the 80s, because a working class radicalised by Thatcherism was more likely to rise up on the streets than one softened by the support of a Labour government. Kitsons, the lot of them. Mostly upper middle class Kitsons.

Tyke. I agree with pretty much every word you wrote there. But I'm scratching my head how you can write that, but be so angry at a Labour party prepared to make compromises to ensure it wins power.

[tyke1962]

Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:

A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.

During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.

It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.

I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .

Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .

We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .

The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .

The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .

The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .

I could never understand at the time  how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I  realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .

Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .

It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .

Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .

That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .

My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?

Couple of excellent posts there.

HA. I had similar experiences with the Left in the 80s. More interested in ideological purity than the dirty job of actually winning power. One SWP member I knew told me he voted Tory all through the 80s, because a working class radicalised by Thatcherism was more likely to rise up on the streets than one softened by the support of a Labour government. Kitsons, the lot of them. Mostly upper middle class Kitsons.

Tyke. I agree with pretty much every word you wrote there. But I'm scratching my head how you can write that, but be so angry at a Labour party prepared to make compromises to ensure it wins power.

It might be just me because I don't really come from mining stock , both sides of the family weren't involved in mining , my grandparents weren't and my old man wasn't .

It wasn't really in my blood in the way it traditionally is around these parts  and I simply fell in to it .

I didn't much care for it to be honest and I never intended to spend my whole working life in it , it's just that 1980's northern town's weren't exactly wick with opportunities and jobs .

Two years after the strike ( 1987 ) my old man gave me the best piece of advice I've ever had , we all knew what was coming down the road and he said I'd be better getting out asap and getting a head start before inevitably competing with 30k others for the few jobs that would be available and b@llax to the redundancy which wouldn't last two minutes on the dole anyway .

In answer to your question , what you have to factor in Billy is that there's a before Corbyn and an after Corbyn effect that many people don't take in to consideration .

If Corbyn hadn't ever become leader I probably wouldn't be as pyssed off as I am with the Labour Party .

Corbyn offered hope and someone in the corner of working people for once and it's hard to get past that with the current offerings or lack of them , business will always come before people and Labour are no different to the Tories in that respect .

The more Starmer has led the party the less I've liked and I simply don't trust the bloke one jot .

I don't know why you get so worked up about it to be honest , Barnsley Central isn't going to vote anything other than Labour anyhow , if they could hold on in 2019 then it's never going to switch to any other  party .

The country had the opportunity to vote in a different economic model and decided not to .

That opportunity will never happen again in my lifetime and as I say that takes some stomaching as we once again stick to this market led economy that's had it's day if it ever had one at all .

The left is completely finished other than the radicalised loons making spectacles of themselves in central London every Saturday these days , you couldn't give me a year's salary to even spend 10 minutes with these lunatics .

Someone is going to have to come up with something other than this current market led shyteshow that's a vote winner .

It's appetite for cheap Labour and insane consumption just isn't sustainable .

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tyke.

I've heard that line about how Corbyn changed everything. Never really understood it though.

What was it about Corbyn's domestic policy that was significantly different to that offered by Ed Miliband?

[tyke1962]

Tyke.

I've heard that line about how Corbyn changed everything. Never really understood it though.

What was it about Corbyn's domestic policy that was significantly different to that offered by Ed Miliband?

There just seemed more authenticity attached to Corbyn given the fact he was always on the backbenchers and not the career politician type .

To be fair I misjudged Milliband , I thought he'd leave politics once he lost the election like his brother did and he hasn't .

I take a Miliband Labour Party anyday with the benefit of hindsight today .

[BillyStubbsTears]

And wasn't the issue with Corbyn that he was on the back benches for a good reason? That being that he was utterly inept at dealing with the issues that leadership throws up on a daily basis?

Corbyn had spent his life talking to people who agreed with him. So he never had to compromise. But the essence of leadership is knowing that you absolutely DO have to compromise to bring people with you who don't agree with everything you say.

Corbyn showed how hopeless he was at this in the very first week he was in power. He was asked "Will you kneel when you meet the Queen?"

There are two answers to that.

1) Yes of course, what a stupid question.

2) No it's against my principles.

What he actually did was to angrily berate journalists for days for asking, before grumpily mumbling that he would. Which left everyone knowing that he didn't want to but he'd been forced into a position that he didn't want.

Then the nadir was his performance in Parliament after Salisbury. An act of aggression by a foreign power. And he couldn't bring himself to condemn it, because he's spent his life with people who's ideology is that you don't emphasise Russia's crimes because it takes the heat off the West.

I think you have to factor in how repulsive that attitude is to the great majority of Britons if you are ever going to come to terms with how Starmer had no option but to make an abrupt and clear break with Corbyn.

[ncRover]

And wasn't the issue with Corbyn that he was on the back benches for a good reason? That being that he was utterly inept at dealing with the issues that leadership throws up on a daily basis?

Corbyn had spent his life talking to people who agreed with him. So he never had to compromise. But the essence of leadership is knowing that you absolutely DO have to compromise to bring people with you who don't agree with everything you say.

Corbyn showed how hopeless he was at this in the very first week he was in power. He was asked "Will you kneel when you meet the Queen?"

There are two answers to that.

1) Yes of course, what a stupid question.

2) No it's against my principles.

What he actually did was to angrily berate journalists for days for asking, before grumpily mumbling that he would. Which left everyone knowing that he didn't want to but he'd been forced into a position that he didn't want.

Then the nadir was his performance in Parliament after Salisbury. An act of aggression by a foreign power. And he couldn't bring himself to condemn it, because he's spent his life with people who's ideology is that you don't emphasise Russia's crimes because it takes the heat off the West.

I think you have to factor in how repulsive that attitude is to the great majority of Britons if you are ever going to come to terms with how Starmer had no option but to make an abrupt and clear break with Corbyn.

Superb post.

[tyke1962]

Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:

A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.

During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.

It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.

I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .

Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .

We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .

The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .

The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .

The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .

I could never understand at the time  how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I  realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .

Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .

It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .

Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .

That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .

My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?

You’re right. I came down to London in 1982 after being laid off twice in 2 years. My old man pretty much forced me to do it as he could see the way things were going for towns like Donny. Overnight I went from a town where work was at a premium to one where I was quite literally able to name my price for any job that I wanted. You could walk onto any building site and be paid whatever you asked for. I’ve said it before; there was no early 80’s recession in the south east.

As you say, Essex man was a ‘thing’ down here and they exemplified everything that Thatcher stood for. It wasn’t just confined to them though. From my experience, the vast majority of people down here were, at best, apathetic about conditions in the north. At worst, they saw it as a price worth paying to keep the south prosperous. During that time I saw that England is fundamentally 2 separate nations, and that remains to this day.

Thatcher created the ‘enemy within’ with the unions and particularly the miners. It was the classic divide and conquer policy against the working classes. And it worked. At the time, almost all the blokes that I worked with were typical working class Tories. To them Socialism was akin to selling out to the Soviet Union.

Labour didn’t help themselves either during this period. They weren’t a credible opposition and spent too much time infighting rather than representing the very people who needed them.

All in all it was a very depressing time.

The fourty years anniversary of the strike has of course seen a number of documentaries on tv marking it but to be honest I haven't bothered to watch any of them .

There's nowt going on there that we didn't know back then and it's best left where it was as far as I'm personally concerned .

I respect those who feel differently of course and have mining in their blood , collect memorabilia and so forth but it was only ever a job I fell in to with a big strike in the middle of it before I left the industry .

It's probably taken the best part of 30 years for my town to recover from the industry closing for good and I think that's a total disgrace and pretty symbolic of what that woman actually was .

However she's where she is right now  and we've just built a new town centre that's booming and I have to say a vibe I've never seen before .

The Essex today I gather is a crime and gang infested shyte hole and if you'd had any sense you'd have moved away years ago , that's just what I hear from lorry drivers who deliver to my place of work .

Funny old world mate isn't it .

[drfchound]

''Didn't I once read on here that you went out and canvassed for the Labour Party in the two elections Corbyn fought Billy ?''

I don’t recall seeing an answer to this.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Not necessarily, it’s important to keep an open mind about things.

And not necessarily all of them at the same time to the nth degree, like someone on the far-right or far-left might be.

Maybe there could be a case made for anti-semitism as both a far left and far right quality too.

Another example. Distrust of big-pharma would have been a classic old school left trait, now the fringes of the right reflexively do.

That’s just some patterns I’ve noticed, if you can dispute them?

Galloway is also a Tucker Carlson fan.

Another example - Wanting a one-state Israel / Palestine resolution.

Interesting. Essentially both rejecting the controlling "establishment", however the definitions of establishment are very different, so in reality there is a confusion being rhetorically abused here.

The left may be distrustful of the corporate private pharma to some degree, not to the overall pharma centred health system, which would always be controlled by "big pharma" in the broader sense, whether private or more state integrated. The right are more objecting to big pharma being used as social control.

Galloway/Carlson - where do you get that he's a fan?

Israel/Palestine - which one state solution?

Mistrust of mainstream media - well yes, MSM is a central tool of the establishment in abusing democracy.

Anti-globalist - this has its nuances, but basically yes, again it is a tool of the establishment.

Anti-intervention in foreign affairs / wars - if you mean worldwide regime changing eg as per US policy, yes. But really they are very different. The right is more focused on issues "at home" and key nationalistic wars -eg Malvinas, the left is against globalist wars and interventions such as Libya, Iraq.

Us versus “the elites” - yep. Mainly the same elites, but not entirely so.

Prone to conspiracies - yep, but so is the centre eg weapons of mass destruction, the need to not over tax the very rich.

Like with the horseshoe, there is a significant gap between the ends.

[tyke1962]

And wasn't the issue with Corbyn that he was on the back benches for a good reason? That being that he was utterly inept at dealing with the issues that leadership throws up on a daily basis?

Corbyn had spent his life talking to people who agreed with him. So he never had to compromise. But the essence of leadership is knowing that you absolutely DO have to compromise to bring people with you who don't agree with everything you say.

Corbyn showed how hopeless he was at this in the very first week he was in power. He was asked "Will you kneel when you meet the Queen?"

There are two answers to that.

1) Yes of course, what a stupid question.

2) No it's against my principles.

What he actually did was to angrily berate journalists for days for asking, before grumpily mumbling that he would. Which left everyone knowing that he didn't want to but he'd been forced into a position that he didn't want.

Then the nadir was his performance in Parliament after Salisbury. An act of aggression by a foreign power. And he couldn't bring himself to condemn it, because he's spent his life with people who's ideology is that you don't emphasise Russia's crimes because it takes the heat off the West.

I think you have to factor in how repulsive that attitude is to the great majority of Britons if you are ever going to come to terms with how Starmer had no option but to make an abrupt and clear break with Corbyn.

You've got to factor in the whole story with Corbyn Billy .

Labour had lost the last two elections and had lost millions of votes since 1997 , continuity Brown lost , Miliband lost .

They only stuck Corbyn's name on the list as the lefty for a bit of balance , no bugga thought he'd win , I'd hardly heard of the bloke to be honest .

Let's not forget it was the members who voted him in .

Everyone underestimated him , Cameron virtually laughed at him , the arrogant prick sneered down his privileged nose at the man , May called an election thinking it would be a breeze and lost the Tory majority , I've never laughed so much in my life when the exit poll was announced .

Yeh I know he didn't win but neither did Brown or Miliband so whose to say who was right and who was wrong back then .

Starmer wouldn't have beaten May or Johnson either .

Nobody wants a Tory or Labour government Billy but the system says we have to have one or the other , it just happens to be your turn this year .

There really isn't anything to get excited or positive about .

It's a total shyte show and as I've said to you before something else is coming down the road after Starmer has done his five years .

There isn't a chance Labour will have a second term with what they've got to deal with , the UK electorate will forgive the Tories and make allowances but not Labour .

My bet is Braverman will be next Tory leader and PM in five years time .

[Herbert Anchovy]

Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:

A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.

During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.

It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.

I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .

Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .

We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .

The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .

The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .

The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .

I could never understand at the time  how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I  realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .

Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .

It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .

Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .

That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .

My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?

You’re right. I came down to London in 1982 after being laid off twice in 2 years. My old man pretty much forced me to do it as he could see the way things were going for towns like Donny. Overnight I went from a town where work was at a premium to one where I was quite literally able to name my price for any job that I wanted. You could walk onto any building site and be paid whatever you asked for. I’ve said it before; there was no early 80’s recession in the south east.

As you say, Essex man was a ‘thing’ down here and they exemplified everything that Thatcher stood for. It wasn’t just confined to them though. From my experience, the vast majority of people down here were, at best, apathetic about conditions in the north. At worst, they saw it as a price worth paying to keep the south prosperous. During that time I saw that England is fundamentally 2 separate nations, and that remains to this day.

Thatcher created the ‘enemy within’ with the unions and particularly the miners. It was the classic divide and conquer policy against the working classes. And it worked. At the time, almost all the blokes that I worked with were typical working class Tories. To them Socialism was akin to selling out to the Soviet Union.

Labour didn’t help themselves either during this period. They weren’t a credible opposition and spent too much time infighting rather than representing the very people who needed them.

All in all it was a very depressing time.

The fourty years anniversary of the strike has of course seen a number of documentaries on tv marking it but to be honest I haven't bothered to watch any of them .

There's nowt going on there that we didn't know back then and it's best left where it was as far as I'm personally concerned .

I respect those who feel differently of course and have mining in their blood , collect memorabilia and so forth but it was only ever a job I fell in to with a big strike in the middle of it before I left the industry .

It's probably taken the best part of 30 years for my town to recover from the industry closing for good and I think that's a total disgrace and pretty symbolic of what that woman actually was .

However she's where she is right now  and we've just built a new town centre that's booming and I have to say a vibe I've never seen before .

The Essex today I gather is a crime and gang infested shyte hole and if you'd had any sense you'd have moved away years ago , that's just what I hear from lorry drivers who deliver to my place of work .

Funny old world mate isn't it .

I’ve not watched the strike documentaries either Tyke. Primarily because I know that it’ll infuriate me all over again.

It’s good to know that Barnsley town centre is on the up. I confess that it must be about 30 years since I ventured into the town centre. Used to go to a nightclub there called ‘Japanese Whispers’ when I was young and daft and was often an eventful night! I went to the Spain World Cup on a trip organised by a couple of lads from Barnsley.

As for Essex, I live not too far from there now.  Crime and gang infested certainly isn’t how I’d describe it but it has its problems like many areas of the country. In the 90’s many of the old eastenders moved out there from east London which gave it a different dynamic shall we say! As with everywhere I suspect, there’s many more good people than bad but they don’t make good headlines do they?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tyke.

I'll have whatever sized bet you want that a) The Tories won't be back in in 5 years, and
b) The Tories will never win an election under Braverman.

You're a strange one. Total and utter insistence that Labour will not do any good. Total refusal to even look at all the positive things that Labour did last time. I really don't get it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

from the parrot 4/4/2020

''IMO Starmer is the best choice for leader of the Labour Party.
He speaks well and will probably give them a chance at the next GE''

I think the consensus was that Keith could be the acceptable face of a left leaning Labour Party Sydney in a way that Corbyn couldn't be given his history .

He certainly got the backing of the left during the leadership election on that ticket .

There wasn't anything wrong with Corbyn's policies , the problem was his history , Keith had none of that baggage .

That's not quite how it's played out hence my view has changed , how simple does it have to be Syd ? .

The delve in to the archives game on forums or even in real life has been done to death to try and discredit people who don't agree with them .

It's a favourite pastime of the liberal class so it comes as no surprise that you are playing this game other than engage in proper debate .

It's designed to shut your opponent up or keep the debate narrow when the debate takes them to uncomfortable places that go against their beliefs .

Keep em coming Syd .

Aye. Corbyn had all the right domestic policies. He was just never, ever going to get elected. Fancy that eh?

And that's before you get started on his foreign policies, where he and his cronies did and still do bend over backwards to not criticise Putin.

Didn't I once read on here that you went out and canvassed for the Labour Party in the two elections Corbyn fought Billy ?

I could be wrong on that and I'm sure you'll correct me if I was .

Yes you did by the way.

Because the most critical issues in both those elections was domestic economic policy, and Corbyn's Labour had the better policies on offer.

The most critical issue facing the whole of Europe right now is how we keep NATO together to prevent Putin taking a step westwards. Britain's role in that may be particularly crucial if Trump wins in November and America start flashing signals to Putin that he can have Poland and the Baltics if he wants.

Corbyn as PM would be a disaster in such a scenario. His naive pacifism would be a green light to Moscow that NATO wouldn't have the will to arm the eastern nations.


 Thank God we don't have to choose between him and the Tories next time.

[tyke1962]

Tyke.

I'll have whatever sized bet you want that a) The Tories won't be back in in 5 years, and
b) The Tories will never win an election under Braverman.

You're a strange one. Total and utter insistence that Labour will not do any good. Total refusal to even look at all the positive things that Labour did last time. I really don't get it.

But it isn't 1997 Billy , it's not even 2010 , at least your a bit nearer to 2024 I'll give you that , the Tories still think it's 1988 .

Unless the two major parties dump this market led economic model and replace it with something better then no bugga can fix it .

I wouldn't underestimate Braverman if I was you Billy , that's not an endorsement either for her .

[SydneyRover]

Tyke.

I'll have whatever sized bet you want that a) The Tories won't be back in in 5 years, and
b) The Tories will never win an election under Braverman.

You're a strange one. Total and utter insistence that Labour will not do any good. Total refusal to even look at all the positive things that Labour did last time. I really don't get it.

But it isn't 1997 Billy , it's not even 2010 , at least your a bit nearer to 2024 I'll give you that , the Tories still think it's 1988 .

Unless the two major parties dump this market led economic model and replace it with something better then no bugga can fix it .

I wouldn't underestimate Braverman if I was you Billy , that's not an endorsement either for her .

Yep, that's just what the UK needs to branch out with a new version of economics ........... different to everywhere else in the world.

Any ideas what this new model looks like tyke?

[SydneyRover]

As the UK has withdrawn from the wealthiest trading bloc in the world and poverty is on the rise, what about subsistence farming.

Each family is allocated a black of land and a bag of mixed seeds and when crops fail they can top up their needs at the ever flourishing food banks.

Digging for Britain?

[SydneyRover]

Who said this ................ (another creepy, liberal blast from the past)


''Someway Starmer has to keep the metropolitan Labour voters onside , recapture the red wall and then the small matter of eating further in to the tory seats .

It's a monumental task but neither is it impossible .

Starmer has to put his own mark on the party that shifts it away from New Labour and Corbyn and not only retains support it attracts it in its millions .

There's some brainstorming to be done here to say the least .

This is why it makes me uneasy when I see a new party headed by George Galloway appear because we need every vote there is , the red wall simply has to return .

I've nowt against George , he's smart operator , brilliant orator and speaks his mind , his brand of socialism is what you'd expect from him but I'm pragmatic enough to know it's for the fairies in this day and age but there's enough who will buy in to it and I'm long past supporting protest groups even if I can reconcile with much of what they say .

Farage put the shyts up the tories but we can't afford that , we've nowt in the bank to play with''

[belton rover]

Who said this ................ (another creepy, liberal blast from the past)


''Someway Starmer has to keep the metropolitan Labour voters onside , recapture the red wall and then the small matter of eating further in to the tory seats .

It's a monumental task but neither is it impossible .

Starmer has to put his own mark on the party that shifts it away from New Labour and Corbyn and not only retains support it attracts it in its millions .

There's some brainstorming to be done here to say the least .

This is why it makes me uneasy when I see a new party headed by George Galloway appear because we need every vote there is , the red wall simply has to return .

I've nowt against George , he's smart operator , brilliant orator and speaks his mind , his brand of socialism is what you'd expect from him but I'm pragmatic enough to know it's for the fairies in this day and age but there's enough who will buy in to it and I'm long past supporting protest groups even if I can reconcile with much of what they say .

Farage put the shyts up the tories but we can't afford that , we've nowt in the bank to play with''

Ooh this is a tough one.
Because of the quote ‘It’s a monumental task but neither is it impossible’, I’m going for General Kanematsu in ‘Bridge on the River Kwai’.

[BillyStubbsTears]

That AI, eh?

https://twitter.com/PostLeft**tch/status/1763757000012554545

Galloway's face with a Farage rant coming out of his mouth.

But yeah, the horseshoe theory is b*llocks.

[ncRover]

The link to the Twitter account doesn’t work for me either Billy.

But I’m sure Bristol can go on to Post Left Watch on there and find lots of brilliant examples of what we’re talking about.

“Trump is the leader of the anti-war movement”

Galloway also suggesting Russell Brand was framed for sexual assault for talking out against the Ukraine war and vaccines.

Lots of praise from him for Tucker and Putin from him on there.

Galloway also talking about how the Jan 6th insurrection was a false flag.

“Like with the horseshoe, there is a significant gap between the ends.” Yes that’s why it’s called the horseshoe theory and not the doughnut theory BRR.

[Bristol Red Rover]

That AI, eh?

https://twitter.com/PostLeft**tch/status/1763757000012554545

Galloway's face with a Farage rant coming out of his mouth.

But yeah, the horseshoe theory is b*llocks.

More blithe BST rhetoric.

[BillyStubbsTears]

NC

It's the swearing filter on here going a bit OTT.

Copy and paste this whole link.

https://x.com/PostLeft**tch/status/1763757000012554545?s=20

Then, replace "**" with 'Wa"

[Bristol Red Rover]

The link to the Twitter account doesn’t work for me either Billy.

But I’m sure Bristol can go on to Post Left Watch on there and find lots of brilliant examples of what we’re talking about.

“Trump is the leader of the anti-war movement”

Galloway also suggesting Russell Brand was framed for sexual assault for talking out against the Ukraine war and vaccines.

Lots of praise from him for Tucker and Putin from him on there.

Galloway also talking about how the Jan 6th insurrection was a false flag.

“Like with the horseshoe, there is a significant gap between the ends.” Yes that’s why it’s called the horseshoe theory and not the doughnut theory BRR.

Lots of incidents you cite, then you generalise from there. See your problem? Hopefully you replied to my other post on this.

So, a horseshoe is not a donut. Correct. There is a gap, not an overlap. And in a horseshoe, the centre isn't far from the ends either. As an analogy it makes a point. As a theory, used in the way BST tries, its lazy. I suggest its good for a donkey.

[wilts rover]

Galloway, public views
11% favourable,
46% unfavourable
42% don't know

Rochdale by-election.
16% voted Galloway
24% voted for other candidates
60% didn't vote

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1763938567061963206

[scawsby steve]

BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.

Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?

Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.

[Sprotyrover]

Galloway, public views
11% favourable,
46% unfavourable
42% don't know

Rochdale by-election.
16% voted Galloway
24% voted for other candidates
60% didn't vote

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1763938567061963206

Galloway got a clear mandate then!

[BillyStubbsTears]

BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.

Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?

Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.

My preference would be for a combination of Keynesian economics, with Government being prepared to use fiscal stimulus aggressively when needed, investment in state education, the NHS and green power generation, together with a hard headed approach to the threat that Russia is now posing.

All in all, not a million miles from Attlee's Government approach.

Funny eh? There's loads of space between the extremes that you list.

So I think a Labour Government under Starmer will deliver all those? Frankly, no. But I think they'll get closer than any of the alternatives. And, as a grown up, I choose the least flawed alternative when I vote.

What do YOU do, SS?

[wilts rover]

Galloway, public views
11% favourable,
46% unfavourable
42% don't know

Rochdale by-election.
16% voted Galloway
24% voted for other candidates
60% didn't vote

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1763938567061963206

Galloway got a clear mandate then!

A lot of (well only a couple but like Galloway they make a big noise) people making a lot of fuss about the very unusual circumstances surrounding a very unusual by-election. And coming to conclusions that they want to be true rather than those supported by data.