A broken country?

There has long been on this forum accusations that during the 1970s the trade unions dominated the Labour government of that time. In my experience of that period, nothing could be further from the real truth of the political situation and the relationship the trade unions had with the Labour government.

It was without doubt to the so-called "winter of discontent" that brought about the election of the Thatcher Conservative government that was to bring to an end consensus politics in Britain. I was at that time an HGV driver jointly supporting with my wife a family of three young children. The above dispute led to all like myself who were employed within a large road haulage company in Severnside being on strike for five full weeks.

In the above, the roots of that dispute lay in the employee/employer relationship structure that had peacefully prevailed in the industry for more than thirty years.

Following the de-nationalisation of the road haulage industry in 1951 wage negotiations, were carried out by way of a "Joint Industry Council" (JIC) which all the leading employers and Trade unions representing the industry would meet to set basic wages and conditions for all of the rapidly growing Haulage industry on an annual basis.

The above structure worked well from 1951 until 1979 with no major disputes whatsoever throughout the industry. However, problems in the middle east caused a rapid rise in oil prices which brought inflation into the British economy. In response to that, the Callaghan led Labour government applied enormous pressure to the representing employers on various industrial wages councils and JICs to not grant inflation matching wage increases. Therefore, it was seen that Callaghan wished the organised manual working population of this country to bear the full weight of bringing down inflation while others outside those large bodies of organised workers would bear no burden whatsoever.

That stupid strategy by a Labour government brought forward industrial action in our road haulage industry and many other industries. The leadership of the unions involved tried initially to stop that action breaking out, but as in our company employees being told they would have to accept a minuscule wage increase that was more than three percent below inflation brought about " unofficial walkouts" throughout the country which inevitably had to be made official by the union leadership due to the sheer size of the action(s).

As stated, Undoubtedly the above led to the election of Margaret Thatcher later that year. However, she was very clever in not placing the blame on the Labour Government who brought the situation about, but on the unions who were caught up in the genuine shop floor anger at the wage Council and JIC position of support for the government.

Her first legislation on taking office was to weaken the power of the Trade Unions and in that the ability of shop floor workers to protect their conditions. From that over the years we have witnessed the advance of minimum wage economizing, Zero Hours Contracts and the Gig Economy into our workplaces to the disadvantage of the weakest and the advantage of the wealthiest in Britain.

Therefore in my view and experience, it was not the trade union dominance of the Labour government of the late 1970s, but the lack of input and influence into that government's thinking and process that brought about the so-called "winter of discontent" that did so much to change the course of Politics in Britain.

The Miners Strike mentioned by some in this thread followed the "winter of discontent" more than two years later and solely involved the coal industry. Arthur Scargill personally called that action without a full ballot of all employed in the mines, and in that led those miners "as lambs to the slaughter" at the hands of the Thatcher government. Truly an awful dispute and time.

Charming story Elegran

I remember a shortage of salt at one point. The shops had very little and you had to be quick to buy any. I had a cash-and-carry card for my playgroup (it must have been the 70s, not the 60s), and there I spied enormous catering bags of it. I bought one, we filled small poly bags, and 30 or so mothers went home delighted.

I'm not confusing the 60s with any other decade. I lived it, I was in full time work.

growstuff
You think, but you don't know.
FYI it's perfect, thanks.
Yours is a bit off.

GG54 is another one confusing the over all 'feeling' of the nation's population with the personal.

And nobody is talking about 'conformism'. Consensus on common goals is something completely different.

(and she's confusing the 60s with the 70s?)

...contd
and other foods were given to those on the dole or getting some benefits.
Although I lived on the outskirts of a large, Labour controlled City, we (I, my parents and siblings) were never reduced to living on the breadline and always had clothes, holidays (in the UK) and treats like new bikes and weekends away.
I certainly think that society at large has weathered the ups and downs of life since WW2, admirably well.
Society changes. Our outlook changes.
It's good to have an upheaval now and again as it calls a halt to complacency...IMV.

I think your memory isn't that accurate Gabriella.

To keep to the theme of the thread, I think that we are better off taking personal responsibility for our own advancement rather than a herd (or collective) mentality in which there will always be leaders and followers.
Followers will then simply do the bidding of leaders without forming or voicing their own opinions.
I was an adult in the 60s >> and can't remember a society where the ideal was to be a conformist.
One brother was engaged in policing the miners strike and I remember the electricity cuts but no food shortages, in fact, at one point there was a so-called butter mountain and

"Titled "Brexit is a necessary crisis" it exposes the nature of the economy, the new relationship between capitalism to politics and the weakness of the state." (Thu 10-Oct-19 12:00:22)

I haven't read the article yet Dinahmo but I'm hoping it shows up one of my pet bugbears. I think one of the issues with capitalism is that the word covers both an economic system and a political one. This encourages people to think that if you don't have what they see as a capitalist government - Conservative in our case - then you will have something other than capitalism.

I believe some of the Nordic economic systems are referred to as 'social capitalism'. It is a bit like the difference between the very confusing "democratic socialism" which to me says the democratising of socialism and socialist economics (lots of voting ) and "social democracy" which to me means the socialising of both democracy and a capitalist economy.

Thank you for the heads-up. I will read it later. For anyone else who is interested, it's here: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/brexit-crisis-global-capitalism-britain-place-world

We all know that Elegran but any lawyer worth their salt knows that it's as much what you don't say as what you do say.
One can only put forward the information disclosed by the client.
I know of many people in the various layers and branches of the legal profession who actively discourage clients from saying too much.
What is not heard cannot be disputed. A lawyer relies on honesty from clients but we all know that clever words can flummox poor counsel and jurors alike.
I rest my case...??

I think, Davidhs, you are coming at this from the personal while what some of us are talking about are the drivers of society at that time.

Your mother's life, as were the lives of many, was still dictated by the strata of society to which you belonged. This was the point I was trying to make. The war brought about a big change in the acceptance of this both from women and from men.

" Having it all" is a myth. Sad really.

A very interesting discussion. Although Thatcher was mentioned early on, the discussion has veered off into bigger themes.

I don't think anybody was saying the 70's were brilliant and of course we must never miss an opportunity to mention Corbyn and how horrible he is.

I do believe/feel there was more sense of collective responsibility, and more connection. Also there was for less choice. Life was fairly regimented, meal times,set TV programmes,less alcohol, less mindless hedonism and sense of entitlement. The Church was still a feature for many.

It influenced the whole social structure everyone expected less, the things we expect routinely today were unattainable, the choices women have today were not dreamt of.

I don't quite understand which way that influence worked, David.

Was it in support of consensus about the 'common good', or supportive of the individualistic, self sufficiency narrative which developed in the 80s and beyond?

I suspect the second, and we hear echoes of it quite often here on Gnet...

Another big influence on society was the police, most villages of any size had a resident Bobby and our local town had a sergeant and 5 constables , they knew exactly who was doing what in town, and the kids respected the police even if they didnt like them.
Now, we have one car at night to cover 40 miles x 15miles, County lines drugs and thieves that know the chance of getting caught is remote

Grandad missed out one very big influence post war , the influence of women that had lived with rationing and deprivation, the order of the day was make do and mend, use up all the leftovers, fill the family up with what you could find. Water was from a well in the yard until 1960 and privy down the garden
My mother carried that routine all her life, her expectations were low, meals out were rare, a bottle of wine sat on the shelf for months.

Interesting article in the Guardian yesterday by David Edgerton (prof of Modern British history at Kings College London). Titled "Brexit is a necessary crisis" it exposes the nature of the economy, the new relationship between capitalism to politics and the weakness of the state.

Grandad Excellent post this morning. You have articulated beautifully the thoughts of many of us on here. Thank you.

Turning to Thatcher, it was during the time she was in power that parents started to verbally (and sometimes physically) attack school teachers for reprimanding their children. When we were young, if we came home from school saying we'd be told off our parents would also tell us off for being naughty. Now, the immediate response is for parents to support their children.

When we lived in Brixton a stone was thrown through our neighbours' window. I happened to see where the stone at come from and told the boys who then went round to complain. The father then came round to my house to inform me that his son had said he didn't do it. My response to that was "he would, wouldn't he" because most children would deny such an action.

Harking back to a post from late last night (after I had given up and gone to bed) I would add a little to the claim that "It's the job of . . lawyers to argue in favour of their clients whether one believes or not, in their innocence or guilt." If those lawyers know that their client is guilty, they are expected to try to soften their just punishment by pointing out mitigating circumstances, previous good character and so on, but they are still obliged to tell the truth. They are NOT expected to lie in their teeth and claim that the client is snow-white and innocent and was a thousand miles away at the time of the crime, guv. If they tell lies on oath they are perverting the course of justice as much as any witness who does the same.

My parents bought theirs Pantglas sadly no tidy profit though, just a few years without paying rent. They sold up for the grand total of £63,000 when my mum took seriously ill and could no longer get up the stairs. Sadly every penny now gone on my dads £128 per week rent for his adapted bungalow. This is Tyneside after all. Houses rarely make profit in these parts. Ex council or otherwise. In fact if you look at the estate where my dad still lives the ex council houses that were bought are clearly the most run down of them all as no-one has any money to improve and repair. The ones still in LA ownership are by far the best.

McClusky is running the LP Annie even the die hard Labour supporters like my dad can see this.

I remember collections being made for the miners on every street corner, soup kitchens and my neighbours taking down their fences to burn on the fires. Relatives and friends pitted against each other never to speak again when a "scab" gave in and went back. Buses with shielded windows being pelted with rocks . Terrible, terrible times.

We go from the sublime to the ridiculous in responses to this thread.

So we've always been a divided nation with no common goals, then?

A lot of mention on the selling of council houses by the tories which were the housing stock for lower paid people but how many staunch Labour supporters bought theirs at a discount and then sold up making a tidy profit?