O/T When did the right wingers....

[WanChaiMiller]

Pensions (copy paste)

Mrs Thatcher wanted self-reliance, not reliance on the state. That was the thinking behind the launch of personal pensions in 1988.

The new plans provided a route to save for those who did not have a company scheme. But, sadly, they backfired.

The promotions and publicity got out of hand. Advisers went to town, encouraging savers to switch out of solid traditional schemes into riskier personal pensions.

Compensating the victims cost the pensions industry £11bn.

[KerrAvon]

Pensions (copy paste)

Mrs Thatcher wanted self-reliance, not reliance on the state. That was the thinking behind the launch of personal pensions in 1988.

The new plans provided a route to save for those who did not have a company scheme. But, sadly, they backfired.

The promotions and publicity got out of hand. Advisers went to town, encouraging savers to switch out of solid traditional schemes into riskier personal pensions.

Compensating the victims cost the pensions industry £11bn.

So encouraging people to have additional pension provision over and above that provided by the state was a bad thing? I am going to struggle to agree with you on that one. I would suspect that most people would.

What were people to do? Shrug their shoulders and accept the lot of the state pension?

If advisers improperly encouraged people to switch out of company schemes than that cannot be attributable to Thatcher. Such an argument would be analogues to saying that shops shouldn’t sell paracetamol because some people would overdose on them. The fault isn’t in the availability, which must, on any rational argument, be a good thing. It is in the manner they were then used by some.

[WanChaiMiller]

Article from the Express - Pensions.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/89...-saving-enough

[animallittle3]

Pensions (copy paste)

Mrs Thatcher wanted self-reliance, not reliance on the state. That was the thinking behind the launch of personal pensions in 1988.

The new plans provided a route to save for those who did not have a company scheme. But, sadly, they backfired.

The promotions and publicity got out of hand. Advisers went to town, encouraging savers to switch out of solid traditional schemes into riskier personal pensions.

Compensating the victims cost the pensions industry £11bn.

Of which I was a victim and received a substantial amount in compensation and far more than I could have ever afforded to put in myself , a mind boggling figure in fact .

[WanChaiMiller]

Quote Kerr 'Nobody was promised untold wealth if they bought BT shares (although many understood that they were priced such that there was likely to be a profit to be made) and it was a euphemism for nothing'

Oh yes they did - see the speech by Thatcher.

'Popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation. We Conservatives are returning power to the people.'

https://youtu.be/Z7Qq01tC0lU

[KerrAvon]

Quote Kerr 'Nobody was promised untold wealth if they bought BT shares (although many understood that they were priced such that there was likely to be a profit to be made) and it was a euphemism for nothing'

Oh yes they did - see the speech by Thatcher.

'Popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation. We Conservatives are returning power to the people.'

https://youtu.be/Z7Qq01tC0lU

I'm not sure where you are going with that clip. It doesn't say at any point that people were offered untold wealth. The quote that you rely upon confirms that part of the purpose was to enfranchise people and the growth in share ownership confirms that was partially achieved.

[rolymiller]

Just a question for you Kerr have you ever represented workers in industrial disputes. Just wondered since you seem so anti union. Don't worry i wont throw a wobbly with your answer.

[KerrAvon]

Just a question for you Kerr have you ever represented workers in industrial disputes. Just wondered since you seem so anti union. Don't worry i wont throw a wobbly with your answer.

Keen followers of my posts will note that I have said that I used to be retained by one of the UK's biggest unions to provide representation to its members. I like to think that it was a rewarding arrangement for both parties.

I am not anti-union. I am opposed to the wholly undemocratic way in which they used to be allowed to behave. I am opposed to the closed shop, which was nothing more than a legalised protection racket (if you want a job here you are going to hand over a portion of your wages to a union). I am opposed to the intimidation of working people by mass picketing. I support the notion that working people should be allowed to express their views in a secret ballot before a strike is called.

The miners’ strike epitomises the issues that I have with the way unions used to be allowed to behave – working people intimidated by mobs - workers denied the right to express their views in a ballot that the union’s own constitution said they should have and workers having to go to court to stop a union misapplying the funds to which they contributed amongst other things. Whatever individual striking miners aimed to achieve from the strike none of that can possibly be justifiable. When workers have to turn to the law for protection against their own union, something has gone horribly wrong, as I'm sure you would agree.

[Brin]

Keen followers of my posts will note that I have said that I used to be retained by one of the UK's biggest unions to provide representation to its members. I like to think that it was a rewarding arrangement for both parties.

I am not anti-union. I am opposed to the wholly undemocratic way in which they used to be allowed to behave. I am opposed to the closed shop, which was nothing more than a legalised protection racket (if you want a job here you are going to hand over a portion of your wages to a union). I am opposed to the intimidation of working people by mass picketing. I support the notion that working people should be allowed to express their views in a secret ballot before a strike is called.

The miners’ strike epitomises the issues that I have with the way unions used to be allowed to behave – working people intimidated by mobs - workers denied the right to express their views in a ballot that the union’s own constitution said they should have and workers having to go to court to stop a union misapplying the funds to which they contributed amongst other things. Whatever individual striking miners aimed to achieve from the strike none of that can possibly be justifiable. When workers have to turn to the law for protection against their own union, something has gone horribly wrong, as I'm sure you would agree.

Kerr apologies for interrupting your two way battle with Wanchai Miller but I cannot sit idly by and let you post drivelling crap such as,
'Whatever individual striking miners aimed to achieve from the strike none of that can possibly be justifiable'

We were in unison with our fellow mineworkers whose livelihoods were being ripped apart by Thatcher, who by the way brought in a yank to do the dirty work for her or have you forgot that piece of history? Someone who got paid millions to just to drift off back to the States and be forgotten about.

Thatcher and her Gang decimated the entire coalfield of the UK and whittled it down just to crush the union who were battling to save working class people being thrown on the scrapheap. The closure of coal mines that were even profitable, mine included, not only cost miners their jobs but the ripple effect to other private businesses who supplied the coal board with tools, oil, machinery etc also went to the wall as they no longer had a business to supply.

There was and still is over 300 years of fossil fuel left underground in the UK. Now look at the state of our energy reserves. Look at who supplies the power to the UK. We have to seek the majority of our electricity from France, our gas from Russia who at the flick of of a switch could cripple and shut this country down within weeks. What a calamitous position to be left in in the 21st century.

What are we trying to do now? Fracking, in the hope they can bore deep enough to draw off the methane left by the closed mines and fossil fuel that still lays beneath our land.

You may say you are not against Unions but boy do you still hate the miners and I feel there's a deep seated reason there somewhere.

[KerrAvon]

Kerr apologies for interrupting your two way battle with Wanchai Miller but I cannot sit idly by and let you post drivelling crap such as,
'Whatever individual striking miners aimed to achieve from the strike none of that can possibly be justifiable'

We were in unison with our fellow mineworkers whose livelihoods were being ripped apart by Thatcher, who by the way brought in a yank to do the dirty work for her or have you forgot that piece of history? Someone who got paid millions to just to drift off back to the States and be forgotten about.

Thatcher and her Gang decimated the entire coalfield of the UK and whittled it down just to crush the union who were battling to save working class people being thrown on the scrapheap. The closure of coal mines that were even profitable, mine included, not only cost miners their jobs but the ripple effect to other private businesses who supplied the coal board with tools, oil, machinery etc also went to the wall as they no longer had a business to supply.

There was and still is over 300 years of fossil fuel left underground in the UK. Now look at the state of our energy reserves. Look at who supplies the power to the UK. We have to seek the majority of our electricity from France, our gas from Russia who at the flick of of a switch could cripple and shut this country down within weeks. What a calamitous position to be left in in the 21st century.

What are we trying to do now? Fracking, in the hope they can bore deep enough to draw off the methane left by the closed mines and fossil fuel that still lays beneath our land.

You may say you are not against Unions but boy do you still hate the miners and I feel there's a deep seated reason there somewhere.

With respect, you were not in unison with your fellow mineworkers. You were in unison with those who agreed with you upon whether there should be a strike. You don't know if you were in unison with the majority of your fellow mineworkers, because the NUM leadership denied them the secret ballot that the unions constitution guaranteed them. They denied them a ballot because they were scared that they might not get the result that they wanted, which was a confrontation with the government.

Rather than receiving the benefit of any form of ‘unison’ your fellow mineworker’s who did not share your view upon whether there should be strike faced intimidation both at their places of work and at their homes and elsewhere. Some may feel that was justified or acceptable, whereas I don’t. The leadership of a union should act upon the wishes of the whole membership, not just those members who agree with them.

Yes, Thatcher wanted the confrontation and prepared for it. The reason for that is that the unions had acted recklessly and unreasonably throughout the 60s and 70s and had caused immeasurable damage to the UK economy and the government was determined to end that. The NUM leadership knew that very well and were also playing a political game. Mining communities paid a huge price for it.

The days of coal are over, Brin: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...017-uk-figures