The Miners' Strike

[Saracen]

....
I find it incredulous however, that you are able to compare the actions of the miners and the Police. I don't doubt for one minute that the miners acted in an equally appalling way towards the police or strikebreakers, the only difference between the 2 is that miners are not paid through taxes to serve and protect the public. If the miners were breaking the law, then arrest them but to beat and taunt them is for me beyond the pale and what's worse all this was done whilst number 10 looked on, their silence condoning the actions and giving the police carte blanche to do what the hell they liked to people who just wanted to work.

The police had been on the receiving end of a considerable amount of abuse from the miners. I know, because as I said, a family member was a serving officer at the time. If you get that abuse, and the attacks, for long enough (and it did go on for a very long time), then sooner or later, and in the heat of things, you're going to lose professionalism and respond in kind. And the police were attacked, on numerous occasions, by miners. So who provoked who? Chicken or egg? And as I said earlier, prove it? Hence my equating aspects of the two sides - neither acted well. But just as not all police officers were taunting miners, nor were all miners attacking police officers or bullying UDM members. But it DID go on, both ways.

But that wasn't the only issue. Another was the intimidation and bully boy tactics of NUM miners against the breakaway UDM miners and their families. I'll say that again just so you don't miss it ... and their families. THAT is why I compare some police tactics with the miners. The striking miners weren't all polite little angels politely standing in picket lines outside their mines .... or other people's mines. Some were very aggressive, very nasty indeed, up to and including throwing concrete blocks off bridges.

So yes, I compare both sides. Both sides, some of the time, acted thoroughly obnoxiously.

Of course I am not naive enough to think that is all that went on but for the miners, protection of their jobs is exactly why they went on strike, and again I say it is false to imply otherwise.

I'm not disputing why the bulk of miners went on strike. That probably was mainly if not entirely about jobs. I'm disputing that that was the sole objective of Scargill and his inner circle.

I am no fan of Scargill, but I find it strange that you see it as him picking a fight with the government, which whilst plays up to his portrayal of a working class thug hell bent on taking on the 'upper' classes peddled in the media at the time, just doesn't stand up to any analysis of what happened over that period. The fact that he wouldn't back down does not mean he went looking for the fight, and as it was the miners in Yorkshire (outside his remit) that walked out in protest at planned cuts while he was trying to negotiate a deal with the government, makes him seem less of the catalyst that you would have us believe.

But it was Scargill and his executive that then ran the subsequent strike. It was Scargill and his executive that chose to exercise their collective muscle, and to refuse to properly ballot and instead try to rely on an old mandate.

I find it incredulous however, that you are able to compare the actions of the miners and the Police. I don't doubt for one minute that the miners acted in an equally appalling way towards the police or strikebreakers, .....

And I object to the characterisation of Nottinghamshire (for instance) miners as strikebreakers. There was not a legally valid ballot, and the NUM strike was illegal. Those areas that called for a valid national ballot were ignored. They were not trying to break the strike at NUM mines. They were refusing to be forced out into an illegal strike by the NUM, and refusing to be intimidated by the bullying of NUM at Nottinghamshire mines. And, as I said earlier, it was my family, among others, getting threatened and intimidated.

[nichomach]

With respect, Saracen, the issue of the requirement for a national ballot was at best unclear; it would have been better by far if there had been one, but Scargill's predecessor, Joe Gormley, had arguably removed that requirement. Many miners were also opposed to a national ballot, since they feared that the accelerated closure of pits would overtake the result of any such ballot. The callout was confirmed by a vote a few weeks later, however.

The idea that the police just reacted to provocation with going a bit overboard is farcical. The aggressive use of short shield units, snatch squads and mounted units was a matter of policy, not a few people going overboard. The police weren't just "taunting" miners; miners were viciously attacked at Orgreave and Maltby, and quite a few were seriously injured. In 1991, South Yorkshire Police were forced to pay out £425,000 in compensation to 39 miners in respect of incidents that occurred at Orgreave. If you look at the rhetoric being employed by government to describe the miners - Thatcher described them as the "enemy within" as she described Argentina as "the enemy without" and argued that the former were more dangerous - the government basically took the muzzle of the police and gave them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted to the miners.

[opel80uk]

Fraid not, much as I hate referencing wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

From the Wiki page: other restrictive government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of local markets and companies

No they weren't fighting for their jobs, they where fighting for unsustainable jobs. There is a VERY big difference. My point is that we learn from this, and encourage (NI incentivation?) companies to retrain people who are at risk etc.

Great as a sound bite, but when you have a Government hell bent on destroying an entire industry, the chances of them funding initiatives for retraining don't look too good do they? And retrain for what? With 3 Million unemployed at the time and the Government dismantling nearly all our industries, what were they going to retrain for at the time?

Justify coal mining as worthwhile. North sea gas, and nuclear are responsible for a lot more of our electricity/gas heating than oil believe it or not. Coal is looking more attractive due to the low price of strip mining, again, this is another discussion (worthy of its own thread!)

We still use coal for nearly 1/5 of our energy consumption, and the price of coal has risen considerably itself due to forecasts of oil reserves not being as plentiful as we thought. We now sit on assets that would need an awful lot of money pumped in to extract. It may not have been profitable at the time, but if the mines had been kept open and improved and made more efficient as opposed to just closed with the miners thrown on the scrapheap, then we now wouldn't have to pay for expensive coal to be imported, whilst at the same time UK coal is looking for foreign investment to help re open some pits (Whilst no doubt taking a large chunk of the profit). Obviously hindsight is a wonderful thing, but short sightedness shouldn't be celebrated either. It's also worth noting that there are hardly any countries in the western world that do not offer some sort of subsidies to their national industries.

And frankly, the notion that we should subsidise some ****ing coal miners, when that same money could pay for clean water for millions more people (if we want to pretend we care) sickens me beyond belief.

Sensationalism at its best there and the perfect example of a straw man argument. The money saved by shutting down the pits was never going to be used to pay for clean water for millions more people, so it's an irrelevant point. What's even sadder is that you seem to believe that it was for economic reasons that the mines were closed down and not political reasons, Thatcher’s way of trying to break the will of the working classes and take down their biggest body for protection, the unions.

The police had been on the receiving end of a considerable amount of abuse from the miners. I know, because as I said, a family member was a serving officer at the time. If you get that abuse, and the attacks, for long enough (and it did go on for a very long time), then sooner or later, and in the heat of things, you're going to lose professionalism and respond in kind. And the police were attacked, on numerous occasions, by miners. So who provoked who? Chicken or egg? And as I said earlier, prove it? Hence my equating aspects of the two sides - neither acted well. But just as not all police officers were taunting miners, nor were all miners attacking police officers or bullying UDM members. But it DID go on, both ways.
But that wasn't the only issue. Another was the intimidation and bully boy tactics of NUM miners against the breakaway UDM miners and their families. I'll say that again just so you don't miss it ... and their families. THAT is why I compare some police tactics with the miners. The striking miners weren't all polite little angels politely standing in picket lines outside their mines .... or other people's mines. Some were very aggressive, very nasty indeed, up to and including throwing concrete blocks off bridges.
So yes, I compare both sides. Both sides, some of the time, acted thoroughly obnoxiously.

Again I go back to the fact that the miners are not paid through our taxes to keep law and order, the police are. I think even you would be hard pressed to argue that the police did not go in with tactics that can be described as heavy handed at best and basic thuggery at worst. And I'm not talking about the odd one here or there, I'm talking about as a matter of policy when dealing with the miners. Ask your relative who was in the police at the time what happened at Orgreave. Ask him why the Police charged. If someone attacks a policeman, I want him arrested and charged, not beaten senseless on the street by the police with the approval of those in charge. That's how Junta's deal with dissenters and it's awful for you to dress it up as 'losing professionalism'. The police were under orders to attack the miners, and that can never be right in any civilised society.
I never once tried to paint the miners as saints and they were anything but, a criminal is a criminal and if the miners were engaging unprovoked in criminal activity then they should have been arrested, not charged by riot gear cops and horses who are unable or unwilling to differentiate between those who want to protest and those who commit crimes.

I'm not disputing why the bulk of miners went on strike. That probably was mainly if not entirely about jobs. I'm disputing that that was the sole objective of Scargill and his inner circle.

I wouldn't disagree with that. This topic came about though after AT described the miners as greedy, but the reason the strike was called was to save jobs. Scargill may have had other motives as well, and certainly as the battle went on I think he saw it as a possible way to bring down a Government he despised but to a certain extent his hand was forced by what the Yorkshire miners done, he either had to turn his back on them or cut short talks with the Government and call a national strike. All this talk about a national vote really is a smokescreen because, whilst undoubtedly he should've called it, there isn't much doubt they would've passed the strike motion anyway. Furthermore, they were worried that by the time they had got the votes in, counted them and passed it, pit closures would've started.

And I object to the characterisation of Nottinghamshire (for instance) miners as strikebreaker. There was not a legally valid ballot, and the NUM strike was illegal. Those areas that called for a valid national ballot were ignored. They were not trying to break the strike at NUM mines. They were refusing to be forced out into an illegal strike by the NUM, and refusing to be intimidated by the bullying of NUM at Nottinghamshire mines. And, as I said earlier, it was my family, among others, getting threatened and intimidated.

Well you can call it what you like, but in my book they were strike-breakers. If it was your family then you will know then that Roy Lynk who was the leader of the NUM in Nottinghamshire up until the split and was then leader of the UDM, was a right winger who struck deals with the Government and offered them advice as to how they could break the NUM strikes in return for assurances that the Nottinghamshire pits would stay open. As nichomach says the strike was ratified, albeit later, so if those in the Nottinghamshire mines were so concerned about the legality of the original strike, why didn't they join at that point? It because their leaders thought they would be safe and the miners working there at the time were only too happy to go along with it, earning more in Government bonuses for working while their fellow miners were struggling on the breadline trying to save their jobs. Most of the pits in Nottinghamshire were shut down anyway by the Tory Government, despite the assurances the strikbreakers and leaders were given, so I suppose there is a lesson in there somewhere.

[TheAnimus]

From the Wiki page: other restrictive government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of local markets and companies

read the quote.

"designed to discourage imports" Importing from poland is the polar opposite of this?

"prevent foreign take-over of local markets" This clearly didn't happen as a result of this action as the vast majority of coal is now imported.

So, importing coal is in no way protectionist, in fact, its the exact opposite.

Great as a sound bite, but when you have a Government hell bent on destroying an entire industry, the chances of them funding initiatives for retraining don't look too good do they? And retrain for what? With 3 Million unemployed at the time and the Government dismantling nearly all our industries, what were they going to retrain for at the time?

the government didn't destory the industry, it just didn't subsidise it any more, there is a big difference between these two ideas. Its akin to saying the government in the states destroyed New Orleans.

We still use coal for nearly 1/5 of our energy consumption, and the price of coal has risen considerably itself due to forecasts of oil reserves not being as plentiful as we thought.

Indeed, but we are also committed to producing less CO2. There are many other alternatives for electricity generation, which is where most of the coal is used in the UK now?

We now sit on assets that would need an awful lot of money pumped in to extract. It may not have been profitable at the time, but if the mines had been kept open and improved and made more efficient as opposed to just closed with the miners thrown on the scrapheap, then we now wouldn't have to pay for expensive coal to be imported, whilst at the same time UK coal is looking for foreign investment to help re open some pits (Whilst no doubt taking a large chunk of the profit). Obviously hindsight is a wonderful thing, but short sightedness shouldn't be celebrated either. It's also worth noting that there are hardly any countries in the western world that do not offer some sort of subsidies to their national industries.

So your saying every industry should have money thrown at it, because there is a chance, in 20 years time it might be profitable?

Then show xenophobia by suggesting foreign investment is bad?

Coal costs too much to extract, get it where its cheaper to extract, cheaper coal runs out, expensive coal now economically viable.

if we had extracted expensive coal then what? Keep upping the subsidy to get the harder and harder to reach coal, whilst cheap coal is available else where? Thats just moronic.

Sensationalism at its best there and the perfect example of a straw man argument. The money saved by shutting down the pits was never going to be used to pay for clean water for millions more people, so it's an irrelevant point. What's even sadder is that you seem to believe that it was for economic reasons that the mines were closed down and not political reasons, Thatcher’s way of trying to break the will of the working classes and take down their biggest body for protection, the unions.

Ah so because i'm emotive, its straw man. Try faulting the content, not the presentation style.

Whats shocking is you think Thatcher gave/gives a **** about the will of the working classes? It was economic decision pure and simple, what would she have to gain breaking their wills!? A tiny bit of occams razor here please!

Out of curiosity, where you effected directly by this? How old are you, and what did you study that you wrote a thesis on this matter?

[opel80uk]

read the quote.

"designed to discourage imports" Importing from poland is the polar opposite of this?

"prevent foreign take-over of local markets" This clearly didn't happen as a result of this action as the vast majority of coal is now imported.

The quote was in response to you asserting that the bailout of the banks was not a form of protectionism, not about the coal industry.

the government didn't destroy the industry, it just didn't subsidise it any more, there is a big difference between these two ideas. Its akin to saying the government in the states destroyed New Orleans.

It was, at the time, a state controlled industry, and by withdrawing funding and closing the mines it destroyed it in this country. How you equate that with an act of nature, I'm not sure but they are not even remotely comparable. What is comparable is say if the Government stopped directing the subsidy it pays to the NHS alongside the NI and starved it of funds, when the NHS ceased to carry on the service it provides saying; 'Well it wasn't the Government that destroyed the NHS.' It makes no sense.

Indeed, but we are also committed to producing less CO2. There are many other alternatives for electricity generation, which is where most of the coal is used in the UK now?

If we weren’t, up to this day, still importing and using coal then I would say that's a valid point. Seeing as we are, it's not.

So your saying every industry should have money thrown at it, because there is a chance, in 20 years time it might be profitable?

No, but there were other ways to make the coal mining industry profitable and worthwhile (as they done in the States & Australia), rather then just closing the majority of the pits. The Government at the time were unwilling to even consider an alternative, but as I've said before this was because it was a political decision and not an economical one.

Then show xenophobia by suggesting foreign investment is bad?

It is a pity that foreign investment is needed when the funds are being used to reopen what were once controlled state resources, as it means the state will not see as much benefit from those resources. Of course now that they are closed and our Government probably would not be able to afford to reopen them foreign investment is welcome as it will create jobs, but if they had never had closed them then the state, and as a result the public, would/should reap the rewards. If that's xenophobic or I said anything in my earlier posts that displayed xenophobia, then I obviously don't know what the word means.

Coal costs too much to extract, get it where its cheaper to extract, cheaper coal runs out, expensive coal now economically viable.

if we had extracted expensive coal then what? Keep upping the subsidy to get the harder and harder to reach coal, whilst cheap coal is available else where? Thats just moronic.

Again, whilst would sound good in the daily Star, doesn't hold up to analysis. Mining coal is and can be profitable but means that money needs to be invested too. Germany, US, Australia, Russia, Canada, Spain and New Zealand all still have active coalmining industries and had so during the period of our pits closing. Do you think they do that for fun? Or because it is economically viable?

Ah so because i'm emotive, its straw man. Try faulting the content, not the presentation style.

No it's not because you are emotive, it's because you equated the closing of the pits with millions of people getting to drink clean water. Whether millions get to drink clean water or not has absolutely nothing to do with the pits in Britain closing, so it most certainly is a straw man.

Whats shocking is you think Thatcher gave/gives a **** about the will of the working classes? It was economic decision pure and simple, what would she have to gain breaking their wills!? A tiny bit of occams razor here please!

Just have a look at the continued attacks on the working classes throughout her reign. The poll Tax, the selling off of our state assets, the slashing of budgets for councils that were predominately working class areas, the selling off of council houses and squandering the profit, the restrictive trade union laws that she introduced, the anti-democratic decision to scrap the Greater London Council and the other Metropolitan County Councils simply because they kept voting for labour which then did actually represent the working classes.
You think what you want, but there is very little doubt that she saw the working class as a means to help her and her ilk get rich, and didn't worry too much about those who were surplus to requirements.

Out of curiosity, where you effected directly by this? How old are you, and what did you study that you wrote a thesis on this matter?

Not really, although I did have 2 uncles that lost their jobs in the mines at that time. I'm 29 and I studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics.

[TheAnimus]

The quote was in response to you asserting that the bailout of the banks was not a form of protectionism, not about the coal industry.

My bad, I assumed we where talking about the coal mines. The banks bailout not protectionist in any way, it did nothing to make Britain better than other nations, due to the international nature of the money market, if anything we've ended up bailing out Europe. Protectionist, is not about subsidising something per say, its about stopping another area, where work might be cheaper, interfering with your area, a classic example which most people are in favour of is controlling immigration.

It was, at the time, a state controlled industry, and by withdrawing funding and closing the mines it destroyed it in this country. How you equate that with an act of nature, I'm not sure but they are not even remotely comparable. What is comparable is say if the Government stopped directing the subsidy it pays to the NHS alongside the NI and starved it of funds, when the NHS ceased to carry on the service it provides saying; 'Well it wasn't the Government that destroyed the NHS.' It makes no sense.

You really fail to understand the difference.

I can buy a lump of coal from pretty much anywhere, I don't give a damn where it comes from, who dug it out, how much they where paid etc.

Health Care, the NHS is the last chance saloon really. There are no other choices that can compete on price or value for money. My last set of asthma inhalers cost me <£20, that is just great value, without it as a student I would have been in serious trouble (just one of the inhalers, of which I've been known to use 6 a quarter, cost £120).

Now lets say someone else came along with a health care system, that *somehow* allowed me to get my inhalers for £15 a prescription, and they where a better drug to boot. Then if someone said why subsidise the NHS for asthmatics prescriptions, I would be first in line saying "yeh scrap that waste of my tax".

The fact of the matter is, for many consumers, there is NO ALTERNATIVE to the NHS for treatment. Whilst any monopoly is a bad thing, and could be argued why the NHS has massive waste etc (but this goes off about market for lemons too) there is no viable alternative, plenty of people Bupa simply wouldn't cover (my mother the leach on the public purse is one example).

That is the fundamental difference, and why the two are not equatable.

If we weren’t, up to this day, still importing and using coal then I would say that's a valid point. Seeing as we are, it's not.

But you miss the point. If coal prices are going to be higher on the international market, than it costs to mine in britain, we open up the mines (yes i except that there is a cost in doing this). So lets look at this economically shall we?

We have, the annual loss from operating, multiplied by the risk free rate each year.
We have, the cost of opening the mine - forcastable profit
Only when the latter condition is satisfied, do we know the the number of years we need for the first condition.

Given the losses involved, and the fact that even now people are showing little interest in opening the mine (because they think the forcastable profit is too low) we can see just how much it would have cost to keep this loss making operation running. All the while hurting other nations. Yes thats how I want tax spent.

No, but there were other ways to make the coal mining industry profitable and worthwhile (as they done in the States & Australia), rather then just closing the majority of the pits. The Government at the time were unwilling to even consider an alternative, but as I've said before this was because it was a political decision and not an economical one.

Well the union where striking about the job cuts, which would have helped make it profitable, they where striking because they wanted the rest of the country to subsidise them. Considering I was brought up with the notion that you don't walk down the street eating food because there might be people starving (Dad long history of Army and living in India for 3 gens), I find that notion horrifically parasitic when you look at their wages vrs the median at the time.

It is a pity that foreign investment is needed when the funds are being used to reopen what were once controlled state resources, as it means the state will not see as much benefit from those resources. Of course now that they are closed and our Government probably would not be able to afford to reopen them foreign investment is welcome as it will create jobs, but if they had never had closed them then the state, and as a result the public, would/should reap the rewards. If that's xenophobic or I said anything in my earlier posts that displayed xenophobia, then I obviously don't know what the word means.

What rewards? 30 years of losses before you apply the discount factor (money isn't free to borrow, not even for governments).

Its xenophobic to deny other people money making opportunities because their not from round here. Local should have nothing to do with investment (providing due diligence with anti-money laundering laws is carried out obviously )

Again, whilst would sound good in the daily Star, doesn't hold up to analysis. Mining coal is and can be profitable but means that money needs to be invested too. Germany, US, Australia, Russia, Canada, Spain and New Zealand all still have active coalmining industries and had so during the period of our pits closing. Do you think they do that for fun? Or because it is economically viable?

Germany at the time had lower wages. Germany still has world leading manufacturing despite a decline in investment at the time, compounded when the wall came down (which was when we started rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishing money again) with reunification. Russian mining isn't really comparable, I don't know anything about the US ones, but weren't the aussies strip mining? Much more profitable because of ease of extraction. Spain has cheaper labour.....

No it's not because you are emotive, it's because you equated the closing of the pits with millions of people getting to drink clean water. Whether millions get to drink clean water or not has absolutely nothing to do with the pits in Britain closing, so it most certainly is a straw man.

Money can do a lot of things, the first time I really fecked up a program, a desk head told me how many african aids orphan months I had just lost. We can do exactly that. Every time I buy a pint in London (£3) I like to remember that whilst i'm giving myself liver cancer, I could have donated enough to provide a few weeks of life for someone less fortunate. Money even for governments (thou labour could do well to remember this) is finite. If you print more, it becomes worthless like Zimbabwe are finding. If you subsidies the coal miners, that money comes from somewhere. That has to be kept in mind, now obviously, i'm not going to suggest its one less duck house am I!

Just have a look at the continued attacks on the working classes throughout her reign. The poll Tax, the selling off of our state assets, the slashing of budgets for councils that were predominately working class areas, the selling off of council houses and squandering the profit, the restrictive trade union laws that she introduced, the anti-democratic decision to scrap the Greater London Council and the other Metropolitan County Councils simply because they kept voting for labour which then did actually represent the working classes.
You think what you want, but there is very little doubt that she saw the working class as a means to help her and her ilk get rich, and didn't worry too much about those who were surplus to requirements.

Wow, attacks eh! Assets where sold desperately to raise cash, the IMF had been involved because our country was to all intents and purposes living beyond its collective means. Trade unoin laws where quite badly needed because they more than anything in the minds of plenty of people where responsible for the decline in most of our industries. There where plenty of other people willing to do the same work for less. The unoins didn't understand this with very short term views hasoned this, just look at royal mail right now, history is once again repeating.

I really think if you put your mind to it she at best saw the working class as a drain, not a means to get rich. Encouraging rich people is very good idea, as often they create a lot of jobs along the way, when you try to tax them, say the 50% braket, even the left-ish media change their status to freelancers to dodge it, because all of a sudden its worth paying someone £3k per year to figure out your 'accounts' (thou I do hope they all get IR35'd).

Not really, although I did have 2 uncles that lost their jobs in the mines at that time. I'm 29 and I studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics.

Lot of degrees! Joint hon?

I think you have a leaning towards Large Gov, where as I strongly oppose government interference in anything thats not a key service (health, education, etc) or requires 'grand engineering' (new towns, transport infrastructure, etc)

I just can't for the life of me, see why we should subsidise any industry that isn't vital. What we should do is ensure everyone is mobile, by this I mean able to change jobs, get any training/education they need at any age.

By failing to allow any of the pits to cut costs, they where doomed without government intervention. Why should we have bothered, we don't depend on them at all?

The financial bailout would have had the same response from me, where it not from the clear evidence of LB that this would have been a total disaster.

I did Comp Sci & Cyb (join Hon BSc), then started to work writing software for financial services and learning more and more about the history of economics, bubbles in particular I found fascinating, so I moved in to trade finding software as the concepts are just so intreging.

My question is, which industries is it OK to subsidise then? Because coal mining really isn't important as can be seen by how well the country has been doing when compared with the world.

[opel80uk]

Been away on Hols, didn't want you to think I went off in a huff!

Won't carry this on too long, but just a few answers to some questions:

You really fail to understand the difference.

I do understand the difference between the NHS and the coal mines, I just happen to think the principle is the same, and the same reasons given for closing down the mines can (and probably will at some point) be used for shutting down or selling off the NHS to allow private companies to make money out of us being sick. When the coal mines were shut, the public were told that it would result in cheaper gas and electricity prices. Considering we still use around 65m tonnes compared to 77m in 1984, and prices for energy are now far higher (in relation), I would say we were lied to, wouldn't you?

Well the union where striking about the job cuts, which would have helped make it profitable, they where striking because they wanted the rest of the country to subsidise them. Considering I was brought up with the notion that you don't walk down the street eating food because there might be people starving (Dad long history of Army and living in India for 3 gens), I find that notion horrifically parasitic when you look at their wages vrs the median at the time.

The unions were striking at how many job cuts and pit closures were planned. In the early talks the NUM conceded that jobs would have to be lost and some pits would need to close, that was never in doubt. The argument was about how many needed to go to make the mines profitable. The Governments figure was a lot higher then the NUM's.

Its xenophobic to deny other people money making opportunities because their not from round here. Local should have nothing to do with investment (providing due diligence with anti-money laundering laws is carried out obviously )

It's not xenophobic to question why the public should be filling the coffers of a foreign company to provide a service for us at an inflated price, when we (the state and in effect us) owned the means to provide that service but sold them off. Let me be clear on one thing though, I used the term foreign in this instance because a foreign company wants to reopen the mine. I would have been equally as scathing, and made the same point, if it had of been a British private company doing the same thing. The issue is about the state selling off what is ours, not to whom they sell it off to.

Money can do a lot of things, the first time I really fecked up a program, a desk head told me how many african aids orphan months I had just lost. We can do exactly that. Every time I buy a pint in London (£3) I like to remember that whilst i'm giving myself liver cancer, I could have donated enough to provide a few weeks of life for someone less fortunate. Money even for governments (thou labour could do well to remember this) is finite. If you print more, it becomes worthless like Zimbabwe are finding. If you subsidies the coal miners, that money comes from somewhere. That has to be kept in mind, now obviously, i'm not going to suggest its one less duck house am I!

Quite right. Although we found over 700 million pounds for the same Government to go to a war that was easily avoidable didn’t we? In terms of the bigger picture, the money needed to keep the mines open would've been peanuts. By the way, as someone who works in a hospital, you’re far more likely to get pancreatic cancer due to drink as opposed to liver

Wow, attacks eh! Assets where sold desperately to raise cash, the IMF had been involved because our country was to all intents and purposes living beyond its collective means. Trade unoin laws where quite badly needed because they more than anything in the minds of plenty of people where responsible for the decline in most of our industries. There where plenty of other people willing to do the same work for less. The unoins didn't understand this with very short term views hasoned this, just look at royal mail right now, history is once again repeating.

I've always thought that there needed to be a curbing of the trade unions from those days, and I speak as someone who belongs to a union, as often what they done was counter productive. But the laws that her Government brought in were an attempt to destroy the unions not rein them in. And of course the majority saw the unions at fault for the decline in industries, and no doubt they did play their part, but the main fault lies with successive governments who failed to invest in them until they either went to rack and ruin or were sold off on the cheap for a quick buck. Of course the media shirked their responsibility when it came to pointing the fingers, but then again why blame those in actual power when you can blame it all on the bogeyman?

I really think if you put your mind to it she at best saw the working class as a drain, not a means to get rich.

If I put my mind to it I may, just about, be able to stop myself from dancing on her grave when she dies, although what she done in NI greatly influences me as well (Definitely another thread!). What she managed to do was turn British politics into one that held financial values over human values, and I think we are still reaping what she sowed today.

My question is, which industries is it OK to subsidise then? Because coal mining really isn't important as can be seen by how well the country has been doing when compared with the world.

Quite simply, all the industries that a country needs to be self sufficient, especially in a time of crisis. Agriculture, Energy, Banking etc.

Lot of degrees! Joint hon?

No, it's a single honours degree. It incorporates various elements of all of them, although you tend to focus on 2 of them in the last 2 years.

[manwithnoname]

Hello
This is my first post.
I have to ask (about QT) - even though it's been 25 years since the Miners' Strike began, there's been no commemoration and nothing on the Beeb. I wanted to ask if other people think that is right.
regards

It might depend on the region you are in. The local BBC news (look north http://www.bbc.co.uk/looknorthyorkslincs/) did run a quiet a few stories over the summer.

[Zak33]

Just curious, TA, but is it equally wrong (or right) to make the country spend a massive amount more on buying power stations that will run off alternative fossil fuels for the political objective of ensuring that one can put those miners out of work with impunity? At the time, more expensive foreign coal was being used to build up stockpiles at the taxpayers' expense for the same reason. Was that equally right/wrong?

It was right... and when our children are scrabblimng around for energy, as the whole world goes into power shortages... we're gonna be sat upon a wealth, a literal pot of gold... back gold.

The miners being out of work was, in my opinion, a calculation...

Long ago, someone told Mrs Thatcher that the world was running out of fuel... and se decided to make a harsh decision... buy other people's coal and oil and gas.. make energy in other ways... so that WE as a country have the final resources of it. The UK coal mines have what we, and everyone else, will need one day.

Capital Greed, Self Defense and Sacrificial.. all in one.

She was a hard cow.... the likes of whom we've not since seen... except maybe Obama.

[TheAnimus]

I do understand the difference between the NHS and the coal mines, I just happen to think the principle is the same, and the same reasons given for closing down the mines can (and probably will at some point) be used for shutting down or selling off the NHS to allow private companies to make money out of us being sick. When the coal mines were shut, the public were told that it would result in cheaper gas and electricity prices. Considering we still use around 65m tonnes compared to 77m in 1984, and prices for energy are now far higher (in relation), I would say we were lied to, wouldn't you?

No. When you look at the cost of subsidising the mine and the price of the coal vrs the price of coal on the open market. It was not more expensive at all.

However as prices have risen, it is now economically viable again to start mining perhaps, but ONLY because prices have risen. The classic example is some of the oil fields around the world that are only worth tapping when its over $120 a barrel.

The unions were striking at how many job cuts and pit closures were planned. In the early talks the NUM conceded that jobs would have to be lost and some pits would need to close, that was never in doubt. The argument was about how many needed to go to make the mines profitable. The Governments figure was a lot higher then the NUM's.

Indeed. So the question is who was right? or who was better qualified/positioned to be right? Or perhaps this one, who had been democratically elected by the people who where having money pinched out of their pockets by these strikers?

It's not xenophobic to question why the public should be filling the coffers of a foreign company to provide a service for us at an inflated price, when we (the state and in effect us) owned the means to provide that service but sold them off. Let me be clear on one thing though, I used the term foreign in this instance because a foreign company wants to reopen the mine. I would have been equally as scathing, and made the same point, if it had of been a British private company doing the same thing. The issue is about the state selling off what is ours, not to whom they sell it off to.

OK, so your pissed off that the state doesn't want to own something?

Lets get something VERY clear, the mines where a hudge economic loss. They sucked money away from EVERYONE who paid tax, whilst at the same time cheaper easier to mine coal was available on the world market. The government shouldn't own any mine, coal and miners are not important to the every day man on the street, they afterall don't really care if its gas/sol/nuc/wind power that they are using.

Quite right. Although we found over 700 million pounds for the same Government to go to a war that was easily avoidable didn’t we? In terms of the bigger picture, the money needed to keep the mines open would've been peanuts. By the way, as someone who works in a hospital, you’re far more likely to get pancreatic cancer due to drink as opposed to liver

So just because money has been rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbished on say a pay per view porn subscription, we should throw it away on even less worthwhile endeavours.

I've always thought that there needed to be a curbing of the trade unions from those days, and I speak as someone who belongs to a union, as often what they done was counter productive. But the laws that her Government brought in were an attempt to destroy the unions not rein them in. And of course the majority saw the unions at fault for the decline in industries, and no doubt they did play their part, but the main fault lies with successive governments who failed to invest in them until they either went to rack and ruin or were sold off on the cheap for a quick buck. Of course the media shirked their responsibility when it came to pointing the fingers, but then again why blame those in actual power when you can blame it all on the bogeyman?

You again have this bizzare idea of how capitalism works, and how efficiency is a very good goal. A government investing in an industry interferes and creates in-efficiency most times.

If I put my mind to it I may, just about, be able to stop myself from dancing on her grave when she dies, although what she done in NI greatly influences me as well (Definitely another thread!). What she managed to do was turn British politics into one that held financial values over human values, and I think we are still reaping what she sowed today.

I think we have been reaping what she sowed for the last 20+ years. The fact that it has taken Labour a lot longer to try and bankrupt the country, the fact we have had such a strong pound which has helped anyone who isn't exporting (and who does that now adays!).

I think she was a very in-perfect woman, lucky too, but overall she was certainly better than what we've got right now, because she actually had conviction.

Quite simply, all the industries that a country needs to be self sufficient, especially in a time of crisis. Agriculture, Energy, Banking etc.

That is so incredibly stupid in my book, look at any country that has done that, and what has happened? Argentina, Russia, China?

Look what happened as soon as the government started to interfere less.

The idea that the gov knows best is folly, as an NHS worker would probably see more day to day than I.

Capitalism has many issues, the idea of a Market for Lemons for instance, if it weren't for that I'd be saying privatise the NHS!

[opel80uk]

No disrespect, but I don't agree with most of what you said, and this thread will run and run if we keep replying point by point but a couple of things.....

I think she was a very in-perfect woman, lucky too, but overall she was certainly better than what we've got right now, because she actually had conviction

Lots of leaders have had conviction, but if it ruins lives, then that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.

and

You again have this bizzare idea of how capitalism works

I don't have a bizarre idea of how capitalism works, because capitalism doesn't work. Look around at the inequality of the world and all the 'benefits' of capitalism (but only if you’re lucky and born; in the right country, the right colour, the right social class, to the right family etc). That the mines closing were another 'triumph' for capitalism, I don’t doubt for one minute.

You gave me three examples of how government controlled states failed, yet don't appear to notice that the economic policy you seem to favour has failed also, and on a much larger scale.

[TheAnimus]

You gave me three examples of how government controlled states failed, yet don't appear to notice that the economic policy you seem to favour has failed also, and on a much larger scale.

Give me one example that failed as much as Argentina. One that fell from such grace.