LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHello
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
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
Why commemorate the death of an industry because its workers decided they where somehow 'better' than some strip miners in other part of the world.
Plenty of towns and villages are paying the price of the unbridled greed, whilst ignoring the rest of humanity as a whole.
Its hard to commemorate something like that, without just simply insulting those who where around at the time.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Just to be fussy, "some" of it's workers, not all. And I still think it was mainly because a politically motivated union leadership thought they could run the country and wanted to bring down the government.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Though I disagree on one point. Perhaps the seminal event that saw union power curtailed and gave out industry a fighting chance (even though many never recovered from damage in previous years) is worth celebrating, though the suffering of miners and their families as a result is clearly not.
I think the miners were treated appallingly by all parties involved. The NUM used them as pawns and the Government's attitude towards them was disgusting. They were betrayed by those who they had invested their trust in and the policy makers in the cabinet at the time acted as if these people's whose livelihood depended on the pits staying open should just take their lumps and sign on.
The miners strike needs to be put into context. A lot of the pits were there first and then towns and communities built around them. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that if the pits close the whole town's economy goes down the pan. TheAnimus says that it was the greedy miners fault. What is greedy about just wanting to work? The strike was wholly about defence of jobs, nothing else and to imply otherwise is disingenuous.
The argument that it was no longer economical to keep the pits open isn't really viable as we already have industries that are subsidised by the Government that don't make a profit. Farming and the Health system are just 2 examples of unprofitable industries, yet their value isn't just measured by the bottom line and as such are deemed worthy to continue. By closing the pits the Government knew that the surrounding towns and communities would be destroyed and I am amazed that people think this wasn't something that was worth the miners protesting about.
But this wasn't just about the mining industry, it was about Thatcher wanting to flex her muscles and show that she would beat the same 'enemy' that had brought down the Heath Government, regardless of whether it was morally right or wrong. There was an article in the newspaper that I read that said in an effort to break the will of the strikers, the Government took away the dependants of strikers right to claim emergency hardship funds. Surely to God the Government did not need to take such a hard and punishing line with not just the miners but their families too?
I think the saddest thing I ever saw was a clip of striking miners marching passing row upon row of police with our boys in blue waving £10 notes at them. Appalling, but if ever there was a symbolic picture to show the huge divide between the haves and the have nots in the 80's, that was it.
Just realised I've gone off on a bit of a rant! To answer the question, yes I do think there should be a commemoration. Not for the union leaders, or those elitists at number 10 but for the people who, though ultimately lost, had the bravery to stand up to a Government who wanted to send them to the dole queues.
I don't agree, either that it is disingenuous, or that it was "wholly" about defence of jobs. And I say that from the perspective of direct experience. From my direct family, one was a police officer involved, and the whole family live in a mining community, and include miners with years of coalface experience. I'm not talking from some cosy academic distance, or from reading books or newspapers.
But ultimately, what we all think was really going on is a matter of opinion, and probably opinion coloured by experience, and what side of the dispute you were on. I'll say this. It's not a dead issue even today. There are many who express the view that Scargill is contemptible and wouldn't be safe showing his face in some Nottinghamshire mining villages even today, and no doubt you could find equally strong and diametrically opposed views in Yorkshire or Welsh mining communities.
No doubt, some of it was about jobs, but there's also no doubt that some of the jobs were lost precisely because basic mine maintenance suffered. I'm no miner, but I've had enough first hand accounts from those that were to have a fair appreciation of the damage that a mine flooding will do, and how unlikely it is that it'll get re-opened afterwards.
And some people behaved disgracefully on both sides. I've no doubt police taunted strikers, be it with £10 notes (and many police officers bought cars or built extensions on their homes as a result of the overtime), but you can also be assured that there was a lot of offensiveness and violence from miners towards police, and towards other miners and their families if they weren't on strike. I was not particularly favourable towards the strike, but those that were buying assets like cars from desperate miners trying to feed their families and doing so at a fraction of true worth were utterly contemptible and I hope they rot in hell.
But my view is clear. Scargill might, putting it favourably, have cared about jobs, but he was also determined to pick a fight with Thatcher, just as Thatcher was utterly determined not to let him win it. And I have to say, love her or loathe her, she was elected to run the country, and Scargill was not. I simply do not believe that Scargill was motivated purely by union duties towards members. And even if he was, he screwed them badly, because that strike caused far more damage to the mining industry, in far shorter time, than ever would have been the case without it.
It's also interesting that he had so nominal, even mealy-mouthed support from both the Labour hierarchy like Kinnock, and most emphatically from other unions. Scargill tried to hold the whole country to ransom, to get his way via blackmail using power cuts. If the other unions had fully supported him, he'd have won. If even the dockers had fully backed him instead of going back to work and letting imported coal through, he'd have won. And he came pretty close. It was, according to many reports (from credible sources), down to a matter of days, a week or two.
But "disingenuous"? Not a bit of it. In fact, I'd argue it's naive to think that's all that was going on.
It's equally naive to suppose that it was just the miners or Scargill who picked a fight with government. Keith Joseph, the primary architect of Tory policy and their leading ideologue, had been arguing since the '70s that any incoming Conservative administration must destroy the NUM, and the only way to do that was to destroy mining in the process; he'd said as much in papers published by the right-wing Centre for Policy Studies think tank that he'd helped found (one of three, the others being in the US and South Africa), and the Ridley Plan (architected by Sir Nicholas Ridley and the Selsdon Group in 1978) laid out the steps required for, effectively, declaring war upon the unions in general, and the NUM in particular in pursuit of that objective. It's worth noting that the NCB and NUM had actually reached an agreement prior to the strike which would have averted industrial action, but that was tossed by Ian MacGregor when he was parachuted in to take over the NCB by the government. Once the deal was tossed, some form of action was inevitable; Scargill was a fool in the way he went about it, however. He didn't call a national ballot; he'd probably have won if he had, but the fact that he didn't and called out each area individually compromised the legitimacy of the action and gave the Notts miners a good reason to not go along with the call to strike (and, of course, break away and form the DUM, much good it did them). Moreover, the timing sucked. There used to be a saying that miners don't strike with the sun on their backs; starting a strike in Spring was foolish, but given the government's stockpiling of foreign coal reserves and the (very expensive) conversion of a lot of power plants to run on either coal or gas/oil, the effectiveness of a strike at any time would have been compromised.
I'd also note that if we're considering violence, the actions of riot police at places like Orgreave and Maltby were pretty vicious, but were entirely in line with the proposals contained in the Ridley Plan.
I wouldn't argue with that, though I would perhaps put a different perspective on it.
The government were of the opinion that they were going to have to take on the unions and especially the NUM sooner or later. Thatcher had already backed done once, and of course there was the Heath problem. So they figured that sooner or later it was going to come to a stand-off, so why not pick a better time rather than wait for the worst one?
And, as I said, love her or loathe her, she was elected to run the country and Scargill wasn't. He just thought he was.
And moreover, the unions needed to be curbed. If you look at industrial productivity right though the 60s and 70s, it was an utter disgrace, and in large part, that was due to unions being overly powerful, to having labour practices designed to given their members the best short-term deal and to hell with anything else, restrictive practices and archaic policies that left UK labour policy the laughing stock of Europe, if not the world. That attitude wrecked the car industry and was a large part of why Letland was an abject failure (helped enormously by lousy designs I grant you). It's largely why the French have a car industry, the Germans have a car industry, the Japanese have a car industry (which, I might add, went from joke to hugely successful exactly while we went from successful to pathetic joke). Even the Americans have, well, had a car industry, even if it was run by ostriches that seem to like having their heads buried in the sand. And much the same can be said for ship-building. We wrecked several major industries in no small part due to trade union extremism.
The old saying still holds .... power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The unions were desperately needed when they were formed, but they went far too far with the attitude that only jobs mattered. If you don't have a sound business, you don't get capital investment and you lose those jobs anyway. That was the result of the union reforms - a far better balance between labour and management which, especially in good times, worked to everyone's advantage. It remains to be seen if that holds in bad times .... like those that are starting. It's also why, after 12 years of a Labour government, the unions are severely miffed that many of those union laws have not been repealed. Even New Labour aren't entirely stupid.
So yes, Maggie and the Tories wanted the fight .... because they were absolutely convinced it was coming anyway and wanted it on their terms as far as possible. Any general that lets the enemy pick the battlefield and the time is at a severe disadvantage. Thatcher wasn't that stupid, but Scargill wad.
First off, i would argue that health care subsidies are somewhat different to a commodity production. Also I would disagree that its really a subsidy, it should in fact be a national insurance, where we all pay for top notch world leading health care, which is made available to all for free, so no one suffers needlessly......
Farmers, don't get me started on the CAP, two wrongs don't make a right, and its very interesting you bring this up, because as someone who feels (note the emotive word, rare i use em) that he's not seen nearly enough of the world/cultures, I've seen enough to see the damage this does. In parts of the world like Africa, where people are very poor, its cheaper to buy a European can of tomatoes than to grow locally (ie create jobs locally). This is just horrific, as it perpetuates the cycle of poverty, it is an example of how interfering with the free market, for selfish protectionist reasons, inflicts the greatest pain on the weakest and poorest.
It is exactly that type of attitude which has to be stopped, cotton subsidies in the US for instance also really grind my gears.
So do you think its right to pay someone more to do a job someone more needy wants, and is willing to do for less?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I couldn't disagree with you more. The Strike was about job cuts. It wasn't about pay, it wasn't about conditions, it was about the pits closing and an estimated 20000 miners being made unemployed. Forget about the politics and side plots that always take place whenever large scale industrial action takes happens, the fact is no plans for pit closures = no strike. The government itself said that it brought in MacGregor to make the coal industry profitable, and the only way to do that was to close the pits. There was very little documentation (In fact I found none when I done my thesis on this topic) that reported the government was taking pit conditions into consideration when deciding which pits would close, it was judged purely on whether it was profitable or not. I fail to see how you view this as about anything other then jobs? Obviously, I realise it later became a war of attrition but this was only after the Government said that it would not bow to pressure and change it's plans for the pit closures. When people call the striking miners 'greedy' it is most certainly being disingenuous, and gives credit to the revisionists version of the dispute that simply did not take place.
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 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.
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.
Well whatever you want top call it, the NHS uses up more money then it receive through National Insurance payments, and needs top ups by the Government to function as it does. It's certainly not profitable, and there is no reason that if we are going to look at everything through the bottom line as was done with the coal industry, then the American model is the way forward.
I'm not necessarily saying that the CAP is a wrong. I do understand what you are saying about the poverty cycle, but there are numerous reasons for this and if there was no CAP then the member states of the EU would just budget their own subsidies anyway. The CAP could actually be used as a force for helping third world countries out of the cycle, but this would of course mean the policy makers changing focus. (Probably worthy of a thread on it's own)
The point is that some of those communities in which mines were closed (specifically the ones whose only or main source of income was the mines) are now some of the most impoverished in Britain. These are actual peoples lives, and if there was money for Maggie to go to a career saving war in the Falklands then there was money to save the coal mines, and those communities. So in answer to your question, yes in certain circumstances I do think it right to pay someone more to do a job someone will do for less, although whether someone being more needy is object able, especially in this instance when we import most of our coal from Poland, the US and Australia.
So protecting the jobs of a bunch of people north of the whatford gap, so they can continue to do something which we don't need at that price is the same as having a free health service, which is providing life for the whole population? Wow.
I must admit I was under the impression that at the time, the coal was coming from cheap strip mining operations, which where much more economically viable, thou some might argue the coal was inferior.
Now if the towns had been given a gradual decline, people might have moved away slowly, the off a cliff edge is very unfortunate, but was obviously hastened by the minors striking, when there where some majors willing to take over the supply. Thats how you kill the whole industry instantly.
I love this idea that we should fund someones way of life, even if they don't provide useful services.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
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? As to the strike hastening the industry's end, the Thatcher government was bent on destroying it anyway, as rapidly as possible (along with most other manufacturing - not least to transition us to a service rather than production based economy).
I never said it was the same, I merely pointed out that not everything is about the bottom line and used the NHS as an example. There are plenty of people who think the NHS is a drain on resources and we should implement the US system of health care as it offers better value for money. They argue that the NHS is continuing to do something which we don't need at the price it charges...... Hang on, where did I hear that before?
And make your mind up. On one hand you criticise the CAP because it produces cheap food which helps Europe import food to Africa at a price which results in their own farming becoming financially unviable, and at the same time can't see the rationale in keeping the mines open as opposed to importing it from countries that were able to produce it cheaper.
I would say that going by your logic, we should think it's tough that the African nations can't produce food as cheaply as we can as it's just economics. You can't be on both sides of that fence. I also assume that you would disagree with any African Government helping local farmers with subsidies, if the produce was still more expensive then what could be imported?
I'm fully aware that Africans die as a result of the CAP but just because the consequences of what happened to the miners weren’t as severe, doesn't alter the principle, sometimes protectionism is necessary. Have a visit of some of the areas that were affected and then come back and see if 'unfortunate' is the best word you can find to describe what happened and is still happening there today.
The industry was killed instantly the moment the miners lost, not when they went on strike. Look what happened to the Nottinghamshire mines, the ones that were given assurances by the Government that if they didn't go on strike they wouldn't close their pits. Within 10 years they were all shut too.
My point is that this is somewhat different because of the amount of money people spend on health, and the fact there is no substitute.
My mind is very made up, EU EXPORTING cheap food to africa because of subsidies its cheaper, if those ended it would be cheaper to farm there. If they put in import taxes, that is another kettle of fish, i'm referring to the subsidies, the interference. Without rich nations been protectionist, they can produce at a lower price, because its a poorer country where labour is cheap. (this may well change as the nation gets ritcher if the land isn't as arable as others).
Where is protectionism good exactly?
Look at coal, if the gov had said you know what, lets put 200% import on coal, who would that have helped? A small minority of people who should have been retraining. Who would it have hurt, pensioners, the most vulnerable members of society in general too? Not to mention helped create inflation due to power increase?
Money should have been spent in helping the miners diversify and find other forms of employment, not throwing good money at a growing hole. This is often why a company firing people as soon as they are starting to feal strain, can sometimes actually be better (thou normally not) than trying to ride it out, and suddenly flooding the market with employees.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I suppose it depends on what your definition of intervention is, but this is exactly what the British government took advantage of when the imported a load of coal from Poland in preparation for the strike. It was cheaper to produce in Poland because the communist government paid their workers peanuts and undercut the rest of Europe.
The bank bailouts and subsequent government demands that the banks lend is protectionism, and whilst sticks in the throat for many, the alternative of letting the banks go to the wall would have been disaster for us here and the global market. The ridiculous lending practises of the banks can trace their roots back to Thatcherism and her support for the free market when, in trying to avoid any protectionism or Government interference, started to dismantle the financial regulators.
If this had been the case, and support offered to the miners, then I doubt as many miners would've supported the strikes as they did. But the fact is after having their jobs taken away they were told by Tebbitt to 'Get on their bike and look for work', at a time when the Tory government had let unemployment hit 3 million. They knew what was coming for them, that's why they fought so bloody hard for their jobs.
Like I said, a service does not need to be profitable in a financial sense to make it worthwhile; other factors need to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, if we had kept the pits open and had some sort of coalmining industry now, then perhaps the pensioners here wouldn't have to worry about paying the extortionate prices that energy companies are now able to charge because of the high cost of oil and weak pound, and instead be able to sustain ourselves through winter. The oil rich states know they have us over a barrel (pardon the pun) simply because we are now almost completely reliant on others for our energy.
All of this is besides the point to what I said in my first post anyways. The miners, whether you agree with their industry shutting down or not, IMO were treated appallingly and then thrown on the scrapheap by the Government simply because they had the audacity to stand up and fight for the right to work.
Errr. That is not protectionism. That is arguably exploitation, but that is another discussion all together (I'll start ranting about how Fair Trade actually can cause problems, create micro inflation which can be completely horrific for those effected etc.)
Fraid not, much as I hate referencing wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism
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.
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!)
You and I have different ideas about 'the right to work'.
An easy example is the luddite movement, most people in the mills where 'exploited' by our luxurious standards, someone who isn't starving in those days could be argued where the lucky ones, but then all of sudden they are redundant because modern process means they are not needed.
Do we ban mechanisation? It costs jobs you know? Or do we evolve with it?
Most towns now know its not a good idea to have one industry, perhaps London will remember this with the current blip we've seen.
If someone in an un-profitable company strikes over job losses, they quickly hurry on the death.
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.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote