Originally Posted by orangeballoon:
“being a leftie isnt thick (and i never said they were, i hope you are not accusing me of doing so?)
anyway, no offence was meant and i was talking about people ringing in to lbc with very strong foaming views they could not back up other than using the same soundbite quotes they said to begin with. NOT anyone posting on here.
The discussion on here was about those people and the response of the presenters who dismissed them for their bias and rant soundbites they could not back up. My comments therefore are valid as descriptions of those callers are they not?
anyway ive said all i ever will on the subject.”
To be fair, much of the miners debate has been about measuring two different things, incidentally, something highlighted with another poster's reasoning above. It's really about productivity &c versus human cost.
Much of the mines closed down under Wilson (which was a counter-argument that reached meme status recently) happened with most concerned acknowledging a production/economics argument and was 'managed'. Thatcher's detractors argue that this wasn't the case with the mine closures afterwards under Thatcher &c.
Pro-productivity arguments (whether mining, manufacturing arguments), which are often propped-up by advances in technology and automation often belie the human cost: there's no longer jobs for people with families to feed. Whether you believe in 'trickle down' economics' plays a part in this, whether increased productivity (helped by automation &c) is immaterial if the country's wealth drips down and is shared by all, including the families displaced by the wholesale removal of job opportunities in whole area of employment.
For the last 30 years or so, whilst we've seen some standards of living rise - albeit propped-up by massive and chronic
private debt, and cheaper clothes, electrical goods due, ironically, the rise of economic fortunes of other countries - we've also seen retrograde motion in social mobility, job stability and so on. Fewer employment opportunities in fewer employment fields.
At the same time, we see those at the top gain more and more and more from the policies that involved such a massive human cost. Even now, when many are genuinely suffering - whatever the lack of media coverage and LBC's 'on message' editorial stance claims - some are making incredible amounts of money during this 'no money left' austerity.
Again, much of the Thatcher argument will always come down to whether someone personally benefited from what happened and continues to happen.
In before 'lefty wefty jealousy' and other such bollocks.