Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Did Tories Kill 25,000 Glaswegians?
Glasgow Boards/Forums > GG Discussions > Glasgow News Blog
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
GG
Disturbing new research by some of the city's most eminent social scientists has concluded that the most plausible single explanation for Glasgow's shockingly high mortality rate is the effect of a sustained political attack on the city by the Conservative governments of the eighties and nineties.

Scientists at the Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH) conducted extensive research into a multitude of candidate hypotheses which may account for why thousands more Glaswegians have died than can be explained by the city's endemic poverty and deprivation (a phenomenon widely referred to as the 'Glasgow Effect').

While it has long been known that Glasgow's high death rate from 1980 onwards was largely due to alcohol-related deaths, drug-related deaths, suicides, violent deaths and road-traffic accidents in young adults (in addition to the continuing high rates of mortality for cardiovascular disease, cancer and stroke), the GCPH study looked into the underlying factors which resulted in the unique and deadly set of negative health behaviours prevalent in the city.

While acknowledging that further comparative research is required into a complex and multifarious problem, the report on the study concludes emphatically that:
QUOTE
The political attack hypothesis seems best placed to bring together the most likely behavioural, cultural and structural determinants of health into a coherent narrative which can explain the post-1980 mortality phenomenon. This hypothesis suggests that the neoliberal government policies implemented from 1979 onwards disproportionately affected the [...] Glaswegian population, and that this in turn was causally implicated in changing behavioural patterns leading to negative health outcomes.

In short, the report suggests that punitive and vindictive Tory policies "got under the skin" of the Glaswegian population, resulting in many thousands more premature deaths from drugs, alcohol, suicide, road-traffic accidents, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, stroke and cancer, even when compared to other equally deprived cities such as Manchester and Liverpool.

In explaining why the Tory governments were inclined to implement such damaging policies, the report suggests that:
QUOTE
[I]n the years after Edward Heath’s abandonment of his neo-liberal ‘Selsdon agenda’ in 1972, and particularly after the loss of the 1974 General Elections, elements within the Conservative Party planned a political attack against the organised working class – which had proved such an obstacle for Heath. After 1979 this plan was implemented with a high degree of resolve, and with very significant adverse impacts.

Regarding why the policies were most lethal in Glasgow, the report states:
QUOTE
What seems less clear is why other deindustrialised areas of the UK did not suffer in quite the same way as Scotland and Glasgow during the 1980s. On this question, there is evidence to suggest that Scotland was in some ways particularly targeted in the broader UK attack, and in key respects more vulnerable to its damaging effect than other areas – in light of its pre-existing poverty, high dependence on industrial employment, and very high reliance on council housing. There is also some evidential basis to indicate that Scotland had a distinctive cultural response to the political attack – in terms of a national feeling of disempowerment and loss of control.

Full report here:
http://www.gcph.co.uk/assets/0000/1080/GLA..._Report__2_.pdf

Click to view attachment

GG.
Crewsy Fixer
I voted No, I have no intellectual input apart from No. Ordinary good respectful people have been down trodden since time began.
Macbeast
"The report suggests " "suggests " " may have " " suggests " " seems " " evidence to suggest " " some evidential basis "

Means nothing.

Lets have some comparative mortality figures for pre-1980 ?
TeeHeeHee
QUOTE
Scientists at the Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH) conducted extensive research into a multitude of candidate hypotheses which may account for why thousands more Glaswegians have died than can be explained by the city's endemic poverty and deprivation

" ... research into a multitude of candidate hypotheses which may account ..."

To charge 25,000 deaths from wide and varied reasons to the account of a political party after extensive research into a multiple of hypothetical candidate causes can only be described as an exercise in research itself.

Theories are all well and good; even when based on a multitude of candidate hypotheses, but they remain theories.

Would it have been a consideration to note how many of the dead among the 25,000 were Catholic or Protestant; or of foreign heritage?

To ask if members might think that a political party's policies might be responsible for the premature deaths of 25,000 Glaswegians over two decades: 2.5 per day approx; and that based on a bunch of hypotheses, has that ring of conspiracy theory about it.
I'd have to read the report itself ... but just out of curiosity.
But my answer is NO.
tarheels
QUOTE
I voted No, I have no intellectual input apart from No. Ordinary good respectful people have been down trodden since time began.

I am from Ojai, Ca. (oh-hi). I do have heritage from Scotland, many years back, I will study this, thanks. Reilly = tarheels
Tommy Kennedy
Certainly the social conditions of pre-war Glasgow, condoned by the Establishment, and their contempt for Scots, killed off thousands of Glaswegians.
Guest
I think some serious study into the Glasgow Effect is long overdue, so well done to these scientists for moving on from the assumption that the higher death rates in our city are simply due to the 'Glaswegian mentality'. Lets hope that this leads to further investigation of the real causes.

Let Glasgow Flourish.
tamhickey
I worked in the Licensed trade during the eighties, and saw the effects that Government policies had on people. Skilled tradesmen were being made redundant in mining, shipbuilding, steelworks and in the building of trains. This de-industrialisation left thousands of people who had worked all their lives in the same trade, and with the same friends undergoing a huge change in their lives, where, bereft of their trades, they would meet up in the pub to pass their days. These were guys who were in the main aged around 45 plus who had done nothing else in their lives apart from the work that the Government had quite deliberately killed off. It led to depression, confusion and a real lack of self esteem for many, but also led to others investing their redundancy money into businesses, moving abroad and buying their homes. That, of course would be dependant on the amount of money available upon redundancy, but the above figure of 25,000 seems rather conflated. However, it's also dependent upon the time scale involved and the veracity of these figures have to be examined in light of all of the above.
wee davy
The figures are irrelevant.
Did people die more quickly in Glasgow and the surrounding area, as a result of 'Thatchers' World' - most definitely.

Are the most vulnerable under attack once again, in the 2010's?

You can bet your life.

Do you think Westminster really gives a fig, for mortality rates in Glasgow?
If you believe that - you also believe in 'the BIG SOCIETY' (Cameron Style)
Guest
Next they will be blaming the Tories for the Holocaust.

What a load of crap. wacko.gif
Beltona Bill
What a load of self-pitying driffle that must have been written by neo-Marxists of the deepest red.

Glasgow has been ruled by the Left for many, many years, so they must bear a lot of the blame that is being leveled at the Conservative Party. However, the blame must ultimately lie with the citizens themselves - drink, drugs, smoking, over-eating, unhealthy life styles,etc. are the principal causes of premature death.

It's not compulsory to indulge in self-harm. Stop whingeing and blaming someone else - it's your own fault.
Jupiter
I dont suppose these mortality figures had anything to do with the copious amounts of alcohol poured down throats,the never ending cigarettes and tobacco smoked to the point where lungs couldnt function,the fresh fruits and healthy foods shunned for the alternative of the lard soaked fry-ups,leaving individuals so obese they are unable to tie their laces?
You can pin anything on any government but dont suggest to me that a person is incapable of making his or her own lifestyle choices.
Constant abuse of the body is bound to bring consequences and premature mortality probably ranks the highest.(Although I have no stats,figures or hard evidence to back this up,merely opinion,just like the tosh written in the disturbing new research)
GG
QUOTE
I dont suppose these mortality figures had anything to do with the copious amounts of alcohol poured down throats,the never ending cigarettes and tobacco smoked ...

Jupiter, you are indeed correct that the factors you mention did cause thousands of deaths (direct causality), however, the hypotheses research is tasked with looking at the underlying factors which led to such a phenomenon. Or, as the conclusion to the research states:

QUOTE
It is unlikely that any single cause is responsible for this phenomenon, and there is uncertainty around why Scotland started to diverge from elsewhere in Europe around 1950. It is clearer that the health and social patterns that emerged during the 1980s and 1990s are more closely linked to negative health behaviours (e.g. alcohol consumption), but these behaviours are in turn heavily influenced and shaped by the social, cultural and economic disruption which occurred as the political and economic policies of the UK abruptly changed from the later 1970s onwards.

Any understanding of the Scottish mortality patterning requires, as well as a clear focus on behaviours, an understanding of the most ‘upstream’ determinants of health, including economic, social and political history. Any analysis which only refers to tobacco use or alcohol, or even to early years — massively significant as these factors undoubtedly are — will inevitably fail to identify the overall causality of this profoundly troubling phenomenon, and will be liable to generate at best partial policy interventions, which are in turn most liable to prove disappointing in their outcomes.

This conclusion is the most important part of the whole document, and suggests that current policy (across a number of organisations) in addressing the higher mortality rates are doomed to failure because they do not address the underlying issues. Effectively, huge resources are currently being spent on solving a problem which is not the issue.

GG.
bilbo.s
It seems that even the affluent ones are intent on killing themselves with binge drinking, smoking and McDonald's etc.
chas1937
Alcohol,/cigs and drugs are the problem and the fact that they are means that the high death rate is self inflicted.All the warnings about this fact goes out the window because of the fact folk think it will never happen too me.You just need too look around you and see the amount of young folk still smoking and THEY know that it can kill you.The older generation didn't get that advice.In the last 2 years here there is a family that have lost 4 members through drink and drug taking with 3 still doing it.So don't blame Governments blame ourselves.The government now says that the Methadone programme isnt working and of course it's not because it is only an extra to folk who use drugs and what is really needed is total abstinance and that goes for alcoholics too
farci
'Chinese Whispers' might be the title of this topic - that's the phenomenon where with each retelling a story changes to the point where the original statement is lost. Combine that with the journalese style of the headline:
Did Tories Kill 25,000 Glaswegians?, New research points to lethal political attack and we are well on the way to losing the plot completely.

Like other posters I believe this is a piece of academic introspection which should be treated with the greatest scepticism. It seems to based on an interpretation of the 'Bradford-Hill Criteria' which I believe are recognised as having limitations.

4/10 for the researchers.
flashton
It's a very useful paper and provides an analysis of the direct links between economic and social policies and the health of the nation. The problem is that the time lag between the two is often decades and the politicians have long gone.

There are several policies from the 1980s/90 where this is evident. An obvious one was the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering where contracts often went to the lowest bidder. Privatisation of hospital cleaning and the rise of MRSA and other hospital infections was no coincidence.

School meals was another. I have just been studying an interesting parallel from the early part of the 20th century where army recruits were found to be so malnourished that Britain was felt to be in danger by the troops not being up to scratch. The introduction of school meals was one of the responses to this concern.

Equally interesting is that the 1980s saw this policy reversed (at least here in England) with the result that many school kitchens closed. Fast forward twenty years and the concern is once again malnourished (obesity this time) adults and children in the lowest socio -economic groups.

It seems that the lessons of history are never learned.
Dunvegan
QUOTE (flashton @ 23rd Jun 2011, 07:14pm) *
It's a very useful paper and provides an analysis of the direct links between economic and social policies and the health of the nation. The problem is that the time lag between the two is often decades and the politicians have long gone. ...

The response to malnutrition in the 1900s was indeed based on the need for fit canon fodder. This was hardly addressed up to the second world war where the German Nazis, albeit at the expense of others, put in place health and welfare schemes in order to breed fitter canon fodder than the rest of Europe. The contrast between the allied prisoners at Dunkirk and their fit German captors was a very marked indeed. It was not until the fifties, "The welfare state", that the nutrition of the lower socio economic portion of the country was ever taken into account.
*greta*
The tories have always hit Glasgow hard because it was a Labour stronghold. So well done to these scientists for highlighting this fact. Of course it has to be one of the reasons, poverty and drink going along with it, as well as loss of hope. Thats one reason that you will never (no matter what) find myself as a Glaswegion and Scot, voting Tory.
Papadoc
Nothing whatsoever to do then with the Tamany Hall style of a Socialist Council over all these years.

They have never given a toss for the people who automatically vote for them, so long as they were able to line their own pockets and provide jobs for their friends and relatives.
ionnsaigh
Difficult to believe that the British Tory government, would racially pick on the working class of Scotland, in a malicious manner. Then again we had the Poll Tax exclusively introduced, worth noting that Northern Ireland was left out of the legislation ...... one wonders why.

One thing is for sure, the Tories hated Strathclyde Regional Council, both for it's size and subsequent power, enjoyed and abused by the criminal overlords, of the Labour Party in Scotland....... The Labour Party or rather it's Middle Class timidity, both allowed and sanctioned, without as much as a whisper of meaningful protest, an attack not only on the poor, rather the people of Scotland.......

Poverty kills people, the finger of blame points firmly and ultimately, to the economic system Capitalism, a system that ultimately depends on the exploitation of the many by the few. One that is thankfully doomed to failure, due to it's own inherent antagonistic contradiction, ( wan that pits wan against the other ) a system that's embraced equally, by the Labour and Tory parties ( throw in the SNP ).

Twenty Five Thousand Glaswegians, is a cross underestimate of the disease and premature deaths that Capitalism creates.
frankbuntain
I am not a politically driven person neither labour or tory. I voted NO to this topic and wonder how any reasonably thinking person can be dupted into thinking that the Glasgow Effect was the result of any political party. Glasweigans have the choice to change their own surrundings but many do not have the will to better themselves or their local enviroment. I can't believe that Glasgow alone has been effected and places like Liverpool, Newcastle or Dundee (as examples) and other cities/town have not. Glasgow needs to think why would someone or organisation spread this kind of topic???
Think Glasgow THINK!!
Rabbie
Nope, yet another pile of over simplified, twisted statistical garbage falsely derived by some shower of biased pseudo intellectual twits.

As much as I detest politicians of all persuasions. of all ilks, it is incorrect and illogical to claim the "Glasgow Effect as being due the Tories political agendas in 80's, 90's.

You do not have to look far to find that many, cities home and abroad, run by different regimes suffer the same effects, or WORSE!

Perhaps the "Glasgow Effect" should be labelled "The Urban Effect."
wee davy
GG posts are normally for people to do just that, frank (having been a member since 2006, I'm SURE you will know that already).

Aside from any party political issues, it is a disgrace, that in 2011, there is such a disparity in mortality rates, MERELY ACROSS THE CITY, never mind compared with anywhere else.

To blame it on the population, is I think not only unfair - but doesn't do one positive thing to address the issue. You may as well suggest people who die of malnutrition, starvation and dehydration choose to die this way, because they are foolish enough to 'live' where they reside.

THINK UK - THINK!
GG
Thanks wee davy, yes, absolutely, the most important thing that can be done in this forum, in its own modest way, is to encourage and facilitate people to think about issues which affect Glaswegians. In this case, everyone knows that far higher numbers of Glaswegians have been dying over the last three decades than anywhere else in the UK, but still – in the 21st Century – this increased mortality rate continues to blight the lives of many thousands of Glaswegian families. And it's not just about premature death, it's also about the quality of the lives lived by Glaswegians.

No matter how unpalatable to some, we need to better understand the reasons for this higher mortality rate in order to address it. It's no use this research being carried out if people are not going to read it and discuss it. This is not a subject for ivory towers, but, I believe, one for ordinary Glaswegians to get involved in.

GG.
GG
QUOTE (tamhickey @ 23rd Jun 2011, 04:11am) *
I worked in the Licensed trade during the eighties, and saw the effects that Government policies had on people. Skilled tradesmen were being made redundant in mining, shipbuilding, steelworks and in the building of trains. This de-industrialisation left thousands of people who had worked all their lives in the same trade, and with the same friends undergoing a huge change in their lives, where, bereft of their trades, they would meet up in the pub to pass their days. These were guys who were in the main aged around 45 plus who had done nothing else in their lives apart from the work that the Government had quite deliberately killed off. It led to depression, confusion and a real lack of self esteem for many, but also led to others investing their redundancy money into businesses, moving abroad and buying their homes. That, of course would be dependant on the amount of money available upon redundancy, but the above figure of 25,000 seems rather conflated. However, it's also dependent upon the time scale involved and the veracity of these figures have to be examined in light of all of the above.

Tam, here's an extract of what the report says about deindustrialisation:

QUOTE
The West of Scotland may have suffered a more rapid and profound process of deindustrialisation than other areas of the UK and Europe, although the evidence for Glasgow City in comparison to Manchester and Liverpool is less certain. Sharp deindustrialisation was a particular feature of Scotland from the late 1970s onwards and the loss of employment that was associated with it contributed to the inequalities in the UK between the South-East of England and elsewhere. Such a rapid loss of employment and community structure is likely to have had an important influence on the culture of Scotland and Glasgow, and on the health-related behaviours.

There is increasing evidence to suggest that the pace and manner of deindustrialisation was forced in the UK, in comparison to other European countries, and that this was part of a broader ‘political attack’.

Growing up in one of the worst-affected areas of Glasgow during the timescale we are talking about, I watched the life and vitality literally drain from the men whose jobs were taken away. So many of them never recovered; as you say, many sunk into a life of going to the pub and the bookies, withdrawing from their families as they were engulfed in hopelessness. It is tragic to think that such despair and isolation could have been avoided, that pace of deindustrialisation was forced in order to deliberately destabilise and destroy whole communities.

Below is a graphic from the GCPH report which puts the 'political attack' hypothesis into the wider context of the process which leads to higher mortality.

Click to view attachment

GG.
GG
QUOTE (farci @ 23rd Jun 2011, 09:00am) *
... Like other posters I believe this is a piece of academic introspection which should be treated with the greatest scepticism. It seems to based on an interpretation of the 'Bradford-Hill Criteria' which I believe are recognised as having limitations.

4/10 for the researchers.

Farci, as far as I understand, the researchers were well aware of the potential limitations of their study – including the use of the Bradford-Hill criteria – and sought to minimise any possible misinterpretations or omissions. In fact, they have already embarked on a further investigation of the possible implications of the limitations of their study.

If you are skeptical of this academic approach to solving an intractable problem, perhaps you can suggest how the problem might be better solved?

GG.
Grampar
Whether or not your posts from people who live outside Glasgow hold any relevance the simple fact remains that since pre 1707 the "English" Government has always taken from Scotland more than it's fair share and aimed it's guns at Glasgow in particular, and this has been shown time and time again. For those who post from outside Glasgow your views are always welcome but do they reflect this City in any way? I do not think so. My eldest son has lived in Cornwall for 26 of his 43 years and denegrates the City of his birth, fed by the lies he hears from his Tory pals, at any opportunity. He is a clean living Christian but, foul language and inuendo apart, he reminds of that other expat Frankie Boyle as far as his attitude towards our City is concerned. They, as other expats furth of the City are concerned, missed the Glasgow Effect by leaving the Dear Green place. And so it has always been. Some maintain their Scottish-ness but deny their Glaswegian birthright and are only too pleased to knock the City at the least opportunity but they forget those of us who stayed in the City and fell foul of this dreadful " plague". I am one of them. I turned to alcohol and my body is shot to pieces from the liver out but thanks to medical skills and my Christian friends and family, in particular my Minister, I overcame the dreaded booze ( and fags ) and now live a happier and more contended life . But lets not kid oursleves Thatcher's dislike of the Scots can be summed up in two words POLL TAX. So it has been Tory, behind closed doors, policy since the "Parcel o' Rogues in a Nation" sold Scotlands birthright in 1707 and I am sorry to say. will continue to be so. If in doubt just listen to Annabel Goldie and read between the lines how she would return to Westminster only rule ASAP. Just think what that would mean for Glasgow! Hopefully the Glasgow Effect is now history and through our devolved Government will for ever remain so.
Macbeast
QUOTE
" In fact, they are already embarked on a further investigation of the possible implications of the limitations of their study. "

So the researchers have no confidence in their own published conclusions and fear that they might in fact be a load of horse manure ?
GG
Macbeast, good point, but the one thing you can always be sure about published scientific research papers is that one of the recommendations will be that further research is required clarify and explore the findings of the research just done. Indeed, this research was a synthesis and classification of pre-existing hypotheses derived from previous research. It's how knowledge is constructed in the scientific community; it's just the nature of the (mac)beast! smile.gif

GG.
TeeHeeHee
QUOTE
... good point, but the one thing you can always be sure about (with) published scientific research papers is that one of the recommendations will be that further research is required clarify and explore the findings of the research just done

QUOTE
Scientists at the Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH) conducted extensive research into a multitude of candidate hypotheses which may account for why thousands more Glaswegians have died than can be explained by the city's endemic poverty and deprivation (a phenomenon widely referred to as the 'Glasgow Effect').

I would have been happier to have read that Scientists at the Glasgow Centre for Population Health had come up with something better than conducting extensive research into a multitude of candidate hypotheses which may (or may not) account for any phenomena.
It all seems too much like my old man's saying, "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs ... If we had eggs."

Now the trick is to unsucessfully attempt to scientifically disprove (falsifiability) the GCPH findings to; at least, establish a working thesis ... which may or may not become an accepted theory - at least until it is disproved. Jobs for the boys intit?

QUOTE
Scientific hypothesis

People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis — often called an "educated guess" — because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.

According to Schick and Vaughn, researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
Conservatism – the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems.

Evaluating hypotheses

Karl Popper's formulation of hypothetico-deductive method, which he called the method of "conjectures and refutations", demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation). According to this view, a hypothesis cannot be "confirmed", because there is always the possibility that a future experiment will show that it is false. Hence, failing to falsify a hypothesis does not prove that hypothesis: it remains provisional. However, a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and not falsified can form a reasonable basis for action, i.e., we can act as if it were true, until such time as it is falsified. Just because we've never observed rain falling upward, doesn't mean that we never will—however improbable, our theory of gravity may be falsified some day.
Tommy Kennedy
Certainly in 'Auld Glesga' booze' was an escape from misrable lifes. I often heard the English say of auld glesga: 'There's a pub on every corner' - they weren't far wrong.

What was Harry Lauder's old song 'When I get a drink on a Saterday night.............'

And of course it suited the Establishment for the masses to booze away thier money.
Melody
Tommy they had to keep them inebriated in order to let them dream off for a wee while from the miserable lives that they afforded the poor workers and that was when they still needed workers. It was only a slightly better existence that being used as cannon fodder when they never needed them.

How's the revolution going? Mind give me a shout when it is time for me to command the troops because The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. laugh.gif
*Michael*
The report mentions a political attack by neoliberal politicians - does this not include Messrs Blair and Brown? Or do they get a free pass because it is Glasgow we are talking about?
Tommy Kennedy
I'm gonna make you responsible for rounding up Jupiter, Melody; he could be an informer/Quisling for the Establishment - and I don't trust that Thee, he hedges his bets, best he be eliminated; auldbutch could take care of him. tongue.gif
Must watch out for 'He' of many identities infiltrating the troops - definatley an informer. rolleyes.gif
Melody
Great Tommy but it sounds a bit like Mission Impossible to me. I want to be Rosa Luxemburg, she was Jewish and I'm half Jewish and she liked singing as well. laugh.gif
Tommy Kennedy
The more that social democracy develops, grows, and becomes stronger, the more the enlightened masses of workers will take their own destinies, the leadership of their movement, and the determination of its direction into their own hands. Rosa Luxemburg

She was imprisoned for her opposition to WW1.
TeeHeeHee
I thought that Blair led a Social Democratic Labour government for 13 years until recently.
The only enlightened masses of workers that he and his government seemed to be interested in; apart from himself and friends, were the masses of imigrants he allowed to enlight onto our shores.
Rosa Luxemburg would turn in her grave at the wasted opportunity afforded the workin' class in great Britain.
big tommy
For sure they killed the hopes and dreams of many many people.

Tommy
Kenneth
Is this typical of Glaswegian attitudes to what the Union has done?
Healthy Mac
Eminent scientists ?? !! Don't make me laugh. More likely that deep fried Mars Bars are to blame together with a high rate of alcoholism and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Robert the Bruce must be turning in his grave at Dunfermline.
Tommy Kennedy
Vey true, Big Tommy, but people aren’t as stupid as in yesteryear, they want more than full bellies, they do have aspirations for a better quality of life
Since the post war years there has been 2 steps forward and one back in Social democracy; major step back: the Thatcher years and present government attempting a ‘Leap back’. People still get fooled by words/actions of politicians but again not as much as in yesteryear. Example: Cameron repeating yet again at Brussels news conference to-day: ‘People know we are taking action in Libya to protect the civilians’ – In Tory arrogance they believe people will accept this.
wee davy
In Tory arrogance they believe people will accept this.

At least Libya isn't one they can blame on 'the irresponsible previous Labour government'.

I'm sick & tired of being sick and tired wie THAT wan!
Tommy Kennedy
Well they were full of envy a Labour government went along with Bush attacking Iraq, Davy, 'War is our busines' they said to them selves. If they had been in power they would have urged BUsh to take on Iran.
Mind they can blame Labour for putting fancy ideas into Thee's head - ideas above himself tongue.gif
*harriet*
It is a shame that such men had a bad time under the Tories. Is it a fair way to treat proud workers who built so much in their lifetimes and who made Glasgow what it was?
benny
Firstly, I have to say that I consider the poll itself to be badly worded. I certainly believe that Thatcherite policies had a harmful effect on many working class British families, but I can't honestly agree that I consider them to be directly responsible for the deaths of 25,000 Glaswegians.

It seems obvious to me that the deprivation which followed on the mass redundancies of the 80's must have had an effect on the health of those subjected to it, but that is a different matter from saying that it was directly responsible for 25,000 deaths.

In a situation of dire poverty, which many experienced in the 80's, it isn't always a matter of personal choice determining lifestyle. For someone on a very limited income, burgers and chips is a much more attractive option than a healthier type meal, because it is more affordable. In a cheap supermarket like Aldi, even today, you can buy a large bag of frozen chips for 99p - cheaper than a tray of apples, or a bag of oranges. For someone with 2 or 3 kids to feed, the cheaper option is often the only otpion.
Ken
This contribution is to Glasgow Guide, what a slurry tanker is to 'meals on wheels.'
GG
QUOTE (benny @ 24th Jun 2011, 08:28pm) *
... It seems obvious to me that the deprivation which followed on the mass redundancies of the 80's must have had an effect on the health of those subjected to it, but that is a different matter from saying that it was directly responsible for 25,000 deaths. ...

Benny, thanks for your comment, I hope to reply to a couple of aspects of your post over the weekend, unfortunately don't have the time just now. However, what I 'd like to say is that the report is actually about how deprivation is becoming less relevant to the worsening health and increasing mortality equation in Glasgow (during 80s and 90s) ... or as the report introduction says "[it's about] the weakening causal link between deprivation and life expectancy". In fact, some social scientists have been able to remove deprivation from the equation altogether and show that the 'Glasgow' effect can be found in places such as Milngavie and, dare I say it, Bearsden!

GG.
Macbeast
It's a bit much to say or imply that the Conservative Government followed a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. But I've noticed before that GG's headlines betray a tendentious nature where the Tories are concerned.
big al
I'd 'hypothesise' that the research makes for an interesting - if certainly controversial - point of view by one group of academics who appear to approach this thorny subject from a certain angle. Does anyone know of any other research into the 'Glasgow Effect' which introduces an alternative explanation to the one put forward here?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.