Via BBC News : Pupil aggro blamed on Thatcherism
Yes, yet another failure in this country is blamed on Baroness Thatcher. First it was the economy, then the railways and now it’s bullying in schools. Apparently because our parents were “Thatcher’s children” and were told “there’s no such thing as society—only individuals and families”, that makes them aggressive bullies and they have passed down these characteristics to their children.
For starters, the article is factually flawed—most parents of people my age did not grow up during the 1980s when Thatcher was in power and half of them probably didn’t agree with her policies anyway (most Thatcherites are in the generation above my parents, and there certainly aren’t many amongst my age group!). Also, I don’t see how people can keep on making the argument that Thatcher is to blame for everything that is wrong with the country. It’s nearly 14 years since she left office which, as anyone will tell you, is a long time in politics. If you want to blame someone, moan at the current government—they’ve had 7 years to sort out any problems.
Of course the fact that this statement was made the president of a militant trade union has nothing to do with it. No-one could accuse them of being sour because they don’t have as much power as they used to in the 70’s, thanks to Thatcher’s legislation to stop secondary/flying pickets. I didn’t think for a moment that Mrs Lerew was saying what NASUWT members wanted to hear rather than what is actually the case. 🙂
Whilst I appreciate that bullying and general aggression in schools has increased (even since I was at school), it’s not fair to keep blaming the problems on someone who left mainstream politics (although admittedly still influencing the Conservative party policies for some time) nearly 14 years ago. It really is pathetic—I bet Blair won’t be blamed in 2020 for whatever problems we have then.
I would hardly call the NASUWT a militant trade union Paul!! Next you will be calling the NUT all spies for Castro nd the Communist party who are trying to bring down the western world by brain washing children similarly to ur spritual leader Mr A.H.!
As for will we blame Blair in 16 years time – we dont honestly know but we will all now that him and Bush Jnr will be blamed if Iraq turns into the next vietnam so possibly!!
And on Thatcher and why we are picking it up now – remember children come aware of politics as they become more mature teen agers 14/15 so those who were at that age in the early 80’s e.g. 1984 and the miners stive where the police were attacking the miners will have kids now so it is possible that this could be a pycological (pardon spelling!) reason for the increase in bullying now in schools!
The NUT are even worse! They’d be on strike over every little thing if the government let them. However, more union militancy means things could be out of control in a few years time – then the Tories can seize power and put the unions back in their place!
The police didn’t attack the miners that badly—you’ve been watching too many ITV documentaries. They responded with reasonable force to a difficult situation.
When it’s my turn to be Tory leader (almost everyone else in the party has had a chance now!) I’ll make sure the unions fall into line. 🙂
Well when was the NUT actually last on strike? It is quite a while ago – yes they have had industrial action but they have not been on a national strike for a long time!
The unions will not be defeated as long as the people are united behind the campaign for better pay and conditons!
U no the famous battle between the Miners and the Met mounted police in notinghamshire if i rember rightly – where the footage shows the miners atacking the police first was doctored cos the police actually started it!
true mate every1 does seem to be leading that party – I have to say as well u will do a better job than the last 2 incumbents dont no abt the present one but we will see soon!
Strike action is not as effective as it used to be – even the unions know that, although they won’t admit it.
The unions will eventually be defeated. Their time has passed and people can’t be bothered with strike action any more. Most people in white collar jobs can’t be bothered to join unions – it’s only the public sector workers who persist in doing so.
How do you know that the footage was doctored? Besides, it was the miners who started it – especially Arthur Scargill claiming that he’d “bring this country to its knees”. I think Maggie ended up bringing him to his knees instead. 🙂
Paul – we will see a General strike could bring this government to its knees nd you know that! The Unions still have power and they know it as soes the government!
They have stood strong for a lot longer than u realise Paul – when it was illegal to join the Union people were still joining unions! and if anything they will get stronger as it is possible that the police will win back their right to strike!!
By public sector i take it you are including Driver inspectors Paul?
Because the editors and producers of the news bulletins at the time have come out and admitted it! The miners didnt start the violence Paul the Police did that nd in fact Her Ladyship caused that by sending the Met Police into a different constabulery area to deal with a Rally that was never going to be a problem!!
Paul one of the reasons that Scargill lost was because the miners didnt like being beaten up – wld u?!
A strike has never brought a British government to its knees since the 1970s, and you know what happened then don’t you? Old Labour (the Socialists who supposedly stuck up for the unions) got kicked out and the Tories got in! So either the unions can’t bring the government to its knees or the Tories will return to power. Either way the unions lose in the end. 🙂
Just because something is illegal it doesn’t stop people doing it – as we can see from the 16 year old drinkers in certain establishments in Bury on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
The police can never go on strike – who will we set on the unions then? 😉
The miners stirred up trouble and Thatcher dealt with them as she thought appropriate. I doubt that the police started it, but even if they did they were merely carrying out their duties to restore order.
Scargill didn’t lose because of the miners being beaten up per se, he lost because Thatcher didn’t give in to his demands and stopped him from fulfilling his aim to bring the country to its knees.
Finally, if Thatcher is really as awful as you make her out to be, how come she got into power on three consecutive elections – a feat unmatched by any Prime Minister past or present?
Gah, this comment system is awful.
Can you not space out replies a bit more, or use lines o separatate each comment?
That better for you? 🙂
Sorry, only just got the hang of Greymatter’s way of dealing with templates.
A lot better. Merci.
You see, I do listen to my visitors’ suggestions. 😉
There were a whole lot of different circumstances there Paul – also the Labour Party has never been truely Socalist for a loong time and we are talking abt pre-1970’s! Oviously it was more socalist then todays lt in 1979 but that aint hard is it really wen they are using nd bettering ur policies!! :laugh:
Well wen it is punishable be death or deportation its slightly different from a rap on the nuckles and dont do it again off old robbie the bobby!
the Army??
The Met were brought into deal with the miners heavy handly which they succed in doing! U can only “restore order” if order has been broke and as it was a public peacefull rally order had not been broke!
Paul oviosuly I admit some – note the word SOME of his demnands were pushing it and he should have negociated and he should have done everything by the book! But u can not always win everything by refuseing to budge or listen to other peoples opinions – look at Bush and Blair now!
Thtacher won her first farely, the second one she nearly lost apart from the Falklands war – third one she still had enough seats left from the second one to alow the slide!
Blair will do the same and last the full 3 terms rather than be kicked out by his own party for not listneing to them over the Poll Tax!
p.s. nice lines!
I know Labout has nicked all our policies, especially on immigration – just look at the stuff David Blunkett comes out with and you’ll see he’s just Michael Howard II.
I’m glad that you admit that at least some of Scargill’s demands were over the top – the problem is that even if some of his policies were acceptable he’ll be remembered as a trouble-maker.
I don’t deny that the Falklands certainly helped Thatcher win the second election, but then in fairness she did deal with it in an appropriate manner, whereas if it happened today Blair would either do what he plans to with Gibralter and give them away or go completely over the top and bomb them until there was nothing left of the Falklands.
I don’t know whether Blair will last the full three terms – personally I think at the beginning of the next Parliament (assuming Labour wins – it’s not a dead cert as it was with the 1997/2001 elections) he’ll face some difficult questions and perhaps even a leadership challenge. I also think that even if he manages to last through that he will step down fairly early because you can see the stress is getting to him and don’t forget his arrangement with Gordon to hand over after 10 years. 😉
Yeah its true unfortunatly! Nd its a possiblity it will be Blunket who will replace Blair! so a definat Michael Howard mrk2!
Wat u must remeber is that its the miners who the left claim as heros from that time not Arthur!
No she didnt – the General Belgrado (pardon Spelling!) was heading away from the Falklands wen we sunk her! that is not how to play in warfare – maybe politics but never warfare
I dont no he wld actually just give it away I think to be honest as he is Thatcher mrk2 himslef he wld do something similar!
Blair will last longer than Thatcher even if it is just by a day just so that he can out do her! His own personal Ego trip! Yeah its possible that he will face some tough questions but it depends how badly they have done – if they have a majority of aprox 25 – 50 there will be no questions asked as the majority is to small! Blair in 1997 only wanted a small majority to keep the backb bench rebels quiet!
As for the deal with Brown – i have to words for u – Wat Deal!
The Belgrado was an armed military vessel in our territorial waters during war time. It hadn’t surrended to our troops so Thatcher did what any Prime Minister in such a situation should have done – ordered the Royal Navy to sink it. It doesn’t matter whether it was heading towards or away from the Falklands – she was merely ensuring the safety of our troops. If you don’t like that then blame the Argentinian leader – he was the one who effectively declared war by landing troops on British soil.
The deal with Brown is that he will take over a year into the next Parliament (assuming Labour win, which they probably will) and Tony will step down.
Why highten tension wen they are heading away from our waters – yes by all means say track them if they renenter/or change course back into our waters it is a different matter but they were going away from us!
Put yourself in the situation of the parents of those sailors on board that boat was there any reason to sink them – NO!
As for the deal with Brown i no what it is meant to be – but u dint click on to my sarcasm as in wat Blair et al will say!
Put yourself in the situation of the people who were in the Falklands at the time – would you like being invaded by a foreign power and then watch the British navy (who are supposed to be protecting you) let them get away with it? I don’t think so. That ship was a danger to the soldiers taking back the Falklands and shouldn’t have been there – unless it had a white flag above it or was an unarmed civilian vessel the navy were right to sink it, and Thatcher was right to order them to. It was a difficult decision that had to be made in a matter of minutes (less than that probably). What do you think people would have said if she had let the ship go and it came back later to sink a British vessel? Despite what you might think, had you been in her position I think you would have made the same decision.
I did view this site in order to help me with my essay on paternalism vs. Libertarian conservatism, however, your ridiculous (rather facist) bickering has only reinforced my belief that only communism is the way forward for this bloody country. and yes it was all those born before ‘85 that sent it to the dogs
Ah, another victim of the socialist-biased educational system I see.
I think if you actually lived under a communist government you would quickly change your mind about how great it is, given that communism is just a nice way of saying dictatorship.