UK without Liverpool?

From a footballing perspective I'd always say country first. But just what does that mean for England supporters around the rest of the country? Since the new Wembley was opened England have played how many games elsewhere?

But was Liverpool really the land of milk and honey in the early 70's? I remember the days of the docker's threepenny bit, and a strike just because a welder picked up a broom. It wasn't just Liverpool that was almost being run by the Unions, and it would be wrong to single out Liverpool as a hotbed of militant tendencies. The midlands motor industry, just like the mining industry threw democracy out of the window. I can remember a televised union strike vote when it was obvious that the majority voted against the strike, but the union leaders on the podium called the 'vote' strongly in favour of striking.

It became a battle between the far left and a Conservative govt, led by Thatcher. Even Neil Kinnock spoke against the militant tendencies, a brave man speaking out at a time when the unions had a big say in who ran Labour.

Unfortunately, Thatcher's battle with the unions also broke British manufacturing, or maybe the unions had already broken most of it.

As for regional assemblies... no thanks. Another layer of bureaucracy to pay for. The Treasury will still hold the purse strings, and central govt will dictate how much local govt will have to spend - its just lip service.
 
The first line made me laugh, was it only left wingers opposed to Thatcher? What about goalkeepers and central midfielders? :D
 
So let me get this straight, we are blaming Brendon Rodgers for the miners strike and Derek Hatton?
 
Wouldnt even need to read the article......ALWAYS club before country....no competition.Geordies and Scousers of similar attitude regarding club v country.

I've gathered the Liverpool attitude from this forum but I always thought of Geordies as being patriotic.
 
Top