Vague_Boy Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Interesting points thus far. It seems the cheap bus fares are something many recall from the time, would that be fair? Or do other policies stick out? Cheap bus fares definitely. How odd it used to be to see adverts on TV for West Yorkshire fares. Did they really pay THAT much? Declaring Sheffield a "Nuclear free zone" is another one, along with the introduction of "Peace Studies". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 .... Had they taken a middle course and sought an accomodation with the Tory government in the way Manchester and other Labour councils of the time did then Sheffield would not have gone through nearly as much pain as it did. The Tories simply ignored them............. I'm not sure what sort of accomodation they could have got and whether what happened could have been avoided. Sheffield was almost totally dependent on steel, coal and the other heavy industries that Thatcher and her cronies despised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 They were counting lamp posts before Thatcher became PM, my pal did it and there was some benefit, which I can't remember now, which outweighed the costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'm not sure what sort of accomodation they could have got and whether what happened could have been avoided. Sheffield was almost totally dependent on steel, coal and the other heavy industries that Thatcher and her cronies despised. But having lost them, Sheffield was starved of grants etc because of the Council's attitude. The classic example was the siting of the Royal Armouries. Where more logical than Sheffield, which used to be called the armoury of the world? Talks were well advanced when suddenly it was announced it was going to Leeds, who hadn't shown any interest originally, but it was suspected that Maggie or her cronies had a word and Sheffield was suddenly out of the frame and decisions taken rapidly in favour of Leeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I know there are many opinions about Thatchers attitude to Sheffield. It seems to me that Thatcher and her supporters were a reaction to what had happened to the UK generally through the 60s and 70s in regard to heavy industry and the trade unions. The miners were producing coal that there was no market for. Steel was being produced that was overpriced and the government was subsidising steel users to buy it. When an attempt was made to rationalise these industries the unions reaction was immediate confrontation. Because of their political affiliations to the far left the unions saw any opportunity to confront any government in an attempt to take more power and create a more radical socialist state. Remember that during the Miners Strike the NUM was prepared to ally itself with Gaddaffi (who at the same time was supplying the IRA with munitions) and with other terrorist regimes such as the Angry Brigade. Thatcher knew that there would never be an accomodation with the trade unions. She was supported by men like Keith Joseph and others now seen as "right wing" in fact they were not. Whilst conservatives, they were a reaction to the abuse of power by the ultra left wing exemplified as above and by councils such as Sheffield. The damage done to Sheffield and to other traditional labour heartlends was not created by Thatcher, she was the bullet, the trigger was pulled by the Tory heirarchy, but the Unions and the lef wingers actually created the gun. I'm not sure what sort of accomodation they could have got and whether what happened could have been avoided. Sheffield was almost totally dependent on steel, coal and the other heavy industries that Thatcher and her cronies despised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 They were counting lamp posts before Thatcher became PM, my pal did it and there was some benefit, which I can't remember now, which outweighed the costs. i imagine the benefit would be knowing how many lamp posts there were Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverknight Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 By someone numbering all the bus stops in Yorkshire we now have the bus tracking system - YNB = Your Next Bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nodens Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Steel was being produced that was overpriced and the government was subsidising steel users to buy it. I worked at Tinsley Park Rolling Mills at that time. It was a new and profitable steel plant that even exported to the USA. It was closed down through overproduction in the steel industry - more likely because we were now in direct competition with our new EEC partners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 For a view from the National Coal Boards perspective read Ian McGregor book "The Enemy Within". There is plenty written by from the NUM point of view but McGregor puts an interesting spin on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I remember when the council placed the red flag on top of the Town Hall, it said everything about the City Council of the time. Stupid. They were determined to take on Thatcher and allied themselves with Derk Hatton and the rest of the loony left. Had they taken a middle course and sought an accomodation with the Tory government in the way Manchester and other Labour councils of the time did then Sheffield would not have gone through nearly as much pain as it did. The Tories simply ignored them. Blunkett abandoned the industrial wasteland that he had made such a contribution to by going to Westminster and becoming one of the most reactionary and right wing Home Sectetaries we have ever had. Betts joined him and has sat on the bank benches for all his time down there. The only contribution he has made was when he tried to abuse his influence to get his boyfriend into the country. Like all the "professional politicians" of all parties who infest this nation neither of them has ever had a real job. Their contribution to Sheffield can be summed up as "misrepresentation" in that thier political activities precluded them for properly representing the electorate whilst running the council and "betrayal" as MPs where there personal lives and allowing themselves to be sucked into the Westminster cesspit again has lead them to become careerists instead of representaives. I have never read such a TRUE statement on the forum before. I applaud thee :clap::clap::clap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.