Oh Maggie how I loathed thee.....

workers_united · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

The reason the strike went on to defeat relates to the failure of the TUC and Labour Party to organise appropriate sympathy action amongst other sections of the working class.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">There wasn't any sympathy from other sections of the working class. The miners weren't striking for a better NHS or better education. The miners expected to be kept in their higher paid jobs and sponge off the other workers of the country.

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Yeah, its better to use coal from abroad mined under slave conditions by child labour, or to use coal mined abroad where enlightened governments continued to 'subsidise' production, rather than retain an indigenous industry with hundreds of years of reserves.

Fool.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Perhaps there is an opportunity for you here to open up a 'Fair Trade' coalmine, paying 'fair' wages to honest Yorkshire folk. What's stopping you? Guardian readers would flock to buy the electricity made from such coal. All your profits could be used to finance the revolution.

The rest of us don't want to pay more for our energy than we need. to to.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So you, the super patriot, who flies a revolting nationalistic flag at every opportunity, welcomed the sacking hundreds of thousands of UK miners and the decimation of their communities for decades.

Stinking hypocrite.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I didn't welcome the end of the coal industry in this country. It wasn't economic so it had to end, just like all industries that don't pay. Redcogs, you are free to open new mines, pay good wages and promise the miners job security for life. You'll go bust very soon. You are the type of person who wanted everyone else to be forced to run an uneconomic enterprise like the UK coal industry just because you approved of it. You are like all socialists - very generous with other peoples money.

Put your own money, not other peoples, where your mouth is. Open a mine and make some money. If you do, I might buy some shares in it.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by workers_united

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

The reason the strike went on to defeat relates to the failure of the TUC and Labour Party to organise appropriate sympathy action amongst other sections of the working class.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">There wasn't any sympathy from other sections of the working class. The miners weren't striking for a better NHS or better education. The miners expected to be kept in their higher paid jobs and sponge off the other workers of the country.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Certainly, I recall resentment at the time from others in the public sector who felt that miners had bigger pay rises than say nurses, simply because they could go on strike with devastating effect.

redcogs · June 2007

'Workers United' bilges forth utter twaddle, which could only have been written by one who is either lying, or who has no experience of the many working class communities outside mining who sustained the strike and the strikers for a year with both practical and political solidarity.

History is always mainly written by the victors, in this instance the British ruling class, but don't deceive yourself or others into believing the 1984/85 strike was anything other than a close run clash between capital and labour which was deliberately orchestrated by a vicious and dishonest bunch of thugs and industrial vandals masquerading as a government.

please look up to the stars.. ***

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

History is always mainly written by the victors, in this instance the British ruling class, but don't deceive yourself or others into believing the 1984/85 strike was anything other than a close run clash between capital and labour which was deliberately orchestrated by a vicious and dishonest bunch of thugs and industrial vandals masquerading as a government.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The victors in the miners strike were the British people, most of whom had lower wages than the miners. They were relieved of the responsibility of paying artificially high wages to the miners.

The coal is still there. Open some mines and show us how it should have been done. If, like Scargill maintained, the coal industry was viable you'll be on to a nice earner.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Certainly, I recall resentment at the time from others in the public sector who felt that miners had bigger pay rises than say nurses, simply because they could go on strike with devastating effect.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

NUM members from pits all over the country had an honourable tradition of taking industrial action on behalf of low paid nurses when necessary - ie, of losing wages out of solidarity with those members of the Health Unions who were frequently called on to care for miners who were damaged and diseased by the awful industrial conditions that we expected them to endure.

Not that i would expect any of you comfortable computer punching rightwing dregs to understand working class solidarity.

please look up to the stars.. ***

workers_united · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

'Workers United' bilges forth utter twaddle, which could only have been written by one who is either lying, or who has no experience of the many working class communities outside mining who sustained the strike and the strikers for a year with both practical and political solidarity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Not that i would expect any of you comfortable computer punching rightwing dregs to understand working class solidarity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ah I see you have now resorted to baseless allegations and assertions. I note your postings are becoming more abusive as you lose the argument (and the plot!).

redcogs · June 2007

It is a matter of public and well documented record that the NUM strike was sustained by donations made by working class communities from all over the country, and indeed internationally.

It is you who makes baseless assertions that you do not support with facts.

The political prejudice and malice which you have towards decent and hardworking people who for generations enabled our society to develop is vomit inducing.

please look up to the stars.. ***

mr_hippo · June 2007

Over 3,000 years ago Moses said to the children of Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the promised land." Nearly 3,000 years later Arthur Scargill said to the miners, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses and light up a camel - this is the promised land."

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 23/24 June: Update published: Monday 25 June

ankev1 · June 2007

Redders,

the issue of the ballot is the big Achilles Heel in your argument and indeed in the trade unionism of old. You said that the miners didn't need a ballot and then went on to say:

What it boiled down to was a simple issue of solidarity - the principle that trade unionist don't vote to sack other trade unionists. That is what the Nottingham lot wanted.

The miners had already brought down one government, something which, if you are not a revolutionary socialist, it is generally agreed is only the prerogative of the electorate. I think most people thought and probably still do think that it is only reasonable to make unions ballot their members, especially if a strike can have such effects. It forces union leaders to do what their members want as opposed to using them to push through a political agenda as Scargill tried.

It seems that fear of the possible outcome of a ballot of the Nottingham miners was the real reason why Scargill didn't want it i.e. he was scared a democratic process would go against him. As you know the British have an instinct for democracy and fair play. Denying a ballot, especially at a time when the country was suffering greatly at the hands of the trade unions, was guaranteed to remove a lot of potential popular support from him.

Solidarity is a fine thing but you can't force it if it is not there. The extent to which it was not there was reflected in the establishment of the UDM. The whole thing demonstrated that Marxism is a flawed analysis and not a practical recipe. It's flawed because it treats the working classes as a homogeneous mass, something which they are all too clearly not. In countries like Britain, it is unlikely that the working classes will ever act as one. But the right to differ has to be just that: a right.

BTW I wouldn't accuse Simoncp of patriotism: he's never indicated loyalty to anything other than the principle of the right to make as much money as you can, irrespective of the consequences this might have.

mr_hippo · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Asterix

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mr_hippo

When it came to pay, that's different! When unions demanded and got for factory workers and got pay rises of 5%, where did the money come from? The company can do one of two things - put up prices or lay workers off and the unions say 'No lay offs'. So the company puts the prices up. Others workers see that retail prices have risen, the spending power has fallen and so they want more money to compensate and the vicious cycle starts all over again. OK, I am over simplifying things but you get the general idea.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That depends whether you consider inflation is pushed by wage demands or price hikes. If prices rise, people want pay rises to match.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have reconsidered, it isn't a 'chicken and egg' situation at all. The primary source of inflation is wage demands. How many of you have tutted or complained when you hear "Botswana coffee farmers earn œ2 a day" or something similar? To some people in the UK, œ2 will not buy but what is that œ2 worth to a Botswana coffee farmer? Let's compare the UK to Thailand - minimum wage in the UK for an adult is œ5.35 per hour or œ214/week, in Thailand, it is 190 Baht a day (œ2.95) or œ17.64 for a normal 6 day week. Now who is richer - the Brit or the Thai? In terms of spending power, it is very, very close! So if wages are kept low, prices can be kept low and be competitive but when wages rise, prices rise and you are no longer competitive. Now, who do can we blame for the pay rises?

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 23/24 June: Update published: Monday 25 June

redcogs · June 2007

Ankev, you misconstrue the events of 1984/85, and your political obsession with discrediting honourable trade union values and practices transparently leads you into the dead end trap of portraying Arthur Scargill as some demonic power with the miraculous ability of being able to force many tens of thousands of hardened industrial coalworkers into a strike against their wishes.

The truth is that a ballot was not an issue for most NUM members, who immediately struck to protect their livelihoods. Those who called for a ballot within the NUM, never wanted a strike, because they selfishly and incorrectly thought their jobs were safe, despite being repeatedly warned by Scargill, that the assault upon their (our) industry was a political one, which would lead inexorably to the end of any significant coal extraction base, and the crushing of their communities and way of life.

The function of a trade union is fundamentally to protect the jobs and economic interests of its membership, and, in my view, even when that conflicts with a capitalist government's program.

Scargill had won office, as already indicated, on a platform of change, away from the old right wing corruption dominated by Joe Gormley, who had singularly failed for years to prevent the run down and accelerating contraction of mining in the UK. NUM members in voting overwhelmingly for Scargill, had voted for a leadership whose main and oft stated motivating principle was that of being properly democratically responsible to them, who would carry out their congress instructions to the letter. To his credit, he remained faithful to that principle.

Would that governments would carry out their election promises.

please look up to the stars.. ***

ankev1 · June 2007

And that as far as it goes is fair enough. The thing is that it leads to Scargill being vulnerable, at the very best, to accusations of gross political/tactical naivety in that he surely would have wished to have been operating from a position of strength. All he had to do was hold and win a ballot. Had he won it he would have been able to exercise a degree of moral authority over those who had voted against a strike. If the reason for not holding a ballot was fear of losing, then he was undermining his position anyway. The point is that not holding a ballot was a big error because it alienated the public and probably generated a "sod you" attitude in those miners who would have at least have liked to have had a say in the matter of a strike. You can never have too much democracy.

workers_united · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

..honourable trade union values <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Anyone who equates "honourable trade union values" to the behaviour and ambition of Arthur Scargill is a traitor to the working class.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The truth is that a ballot was not an issue for most NUM members, who immediately struck to protect their livelihoods<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> You should have added "and bollox to the other workers because we'll make them pay to keep us"

redcogs · June 2007

Had a ballot gone ahead and failed to win a mandate for the strike, the certainty was that the coal industry would have instantly been reduced to what it subsequently became, an empty shell. Scargill knew it, so did the intelligent membership of the NUM.

There was no alternative other than to stand and fight, which did at least hold the prospect of winning, and the further prospect of retaining a future had they succeeded.

please look up to the stars.. ***

ankev1 · June 2007

There's an implication in what you post there that a ballot might have been a close run thing. If you're suggesting that a majority of NUM members were probably against the idea of a strike, then it is a miracle that the strike lasted as long as it did, but if a majority was indeed against it, then it was ultimately doomed. If Scargill believed that he would lose the vote then surely it was immoral of him to push for the strike in that knowledge, irrespective of how much he may have been convinced that there was a necessity for it.

oldwelshman · June 2007

Redcogs, I think you have your fact wrong.
In Wales we voted against the strike by 95% but Scargil knew we would not cross picket lines and when we turned up for work the Monday after the vote, there were two pickets from Yorkshire there and that is how we went on strike.
The reason the Welsh miners voted in such a high percentage against the strike was that we went on strike in 1983 due to closures of Welsh Collieries and Mr Scargill refused to support the Welsh cause, so they had alreday closed several Welsh mines so we decided afainst strike in 1984.
When Scargill and Jack Taylor turned up at one of our union meetings 6 months into the strike ( we did not know they were there) they had to remove them for their own safety [:D]
We were for a strike if it had been democratic and been at the right time, but the right time was two years earlier.
Between Scargill and Thatcher the unions were basically destroyed.
I know many people who have never had a decent job since 1984.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

One or two ill informed posters above are blaming the mineworkers and/or their representatives for the crushing of the coal industry following the strike of 84/85 - presumably its easier to blame the victims rather than face the brutal reality of Thatcher's industrial vandalism.

Those among you believing that the strike was in some way undemocratic, and that Scargill had the extraordinary ability to bounce many tens of thousands of miners into strike action against their wishes need a history lesson: It necessarily begins with the fact that Scargill's ascendancy within the NUM was based on his widely aired political argument that it was possible for the miners to positively influence the future of the coal industry. Scargill won that argument, and was consequently elected to the presidency of the NUM in 1981 by 70.3% of miners, on a very open and public platform of militant resistance to pit closures - an area of crucial concern for pitmen who'd for decades been very vulnerable to the swing of the jobs axe. The campaign against pit closures actually began in October 1983 when the NUM special conference (a thoroughly democratic forum) instituted an immediate overtime ban, a fact that refutes the suggestion that Scargill had chosen a bad time (Spring 1984 when the strike started) to begin the resistance. The ban on overtime working was particularly effective because it was very widely (ie democratically) supported - and it lost the NCB 30% of its normal capacity for four months in the run up to Cortonwoods closure (the 'spark' which produced the strike). The NUMs democratic tradition was also evident at the special delegate conference which decided to issue the strike call on 19th April 1984. In the weeks prior to that conference all the NUM areas from Scotland to Kent had democratically decided what course to pursue, and each area delegate put their view and voted accordingly.

There is no question whatsoever that the struggle by miners to protect their pits, communities, and their way of life was a democratic struggle, and that it had been democratically sanctioned in accordance with the NUMs rule book at every stage. The evidence for this? Within two weeks of the strike call over 80% of the workforce were out and fighting for their very livelihoods against the most vicious lying and ugly government of the 20th century. The miners struggle was heroic - when they lost, we were all diminished.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">[:D]

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

redcogs · June 2007

Well, as the American's might say, its a judgement call Ankev'.

For me, it would have been immoral for any trade union leader to preside over the enforced decimation of their member's terms and conditions of work without trying to prevent it happening, so to sit back and allow employers/governments to crush entire industries and associated communities, without encouraging resistance, would have almost been a crime against humanity.

Smashing peoples lives from a position of authority and power in the way that Thatcher and her toads and paymasters did was certainly an act of grave immorality, and is tantamount to what occurred when the native American Indians were driven away from what they knew, or the way the Sharecroppers were rolled over.

Perhaps a second reading of 'Grapes of Wrath' might enable a clearer understanding of morality?

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by oldwelshman

Redcogs, I think you have your fact wrong.
In Wales we voted against the strike by 95% but Scargil knew we would not cross picket lines and when we turned up for work the Monday after the vote, there were two pickets from Yorkshire there and that is how we went on strike.
The reason the Welsh miners voted in such a high percentage against the strike was that we went on strike in 1983 due to closures of Welsh Collieries and Mr Scargill refused to support the Welsh cause, so they had alreday closed several Welsh mines so we decided afainst strike in 1984.
When Scargill and Jack Taylor turned up at one of our union meetings 6 months into the strike ( we did not know they were there) they had to remove them for their own safety [:D]
We were for a strike if it had been democratic and been at the right time, but the right time was two years earlier.
Between Scargill and Thatcher the unions were basically destroyed.
I know many people who have never had a decent job since 1984.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i don't believe my facts are wrong oldwelshman. i have not discussed the situation in Wales, but the national coalfield situation.

please look up to the stars.. ***

oldwelshman · June 2007

You obviously have no idea of the coal industry or history of subsidised imports from China, USA, Eastern Europe or the diminishing Oil and Gas fields.
In the 80's 90% of electricity was produced by coal. Now it is by gas so how long do you think the gas reserves will sustain that? Not long!!!
Same for oil. With current increase in use of oil in every country and gas to generate electricity, you will see a vast reduction in global energy reserves so the only other way is through nuclear, wind, water etc.
With respect to the miners running the mines after Thatcher tore them apart, where did you think we would get the money to do this after a strike? In fact one mine did do this, In Hirwaun wales, but the fact remains it is a risky business which needs vast investment and is not a quick money maker you would like it to be.
When mines close, they flood which makes the strata weak thus dangerous so it is not, as you suggest, easy to dig coal again. I would be interested to hear how you would propose digging this coal up from anywhere on a large scale?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gbyers

But he was right, the govt didn't want a coal industry and by he end of the eighties we didn't have one. Not because it fitted with energy policy or economics but because Thatcher wanted rid of mining and union influence - not the act of a great leader.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You are correct that the government didn't want a coal industry. That's because it did not pay its way, and industries that don't pay their way need to be shut down by their owners so they don't lose ever more money for the shareholders. With a state owned industry the shareholders are every person in the country - not just those who work in that industry and benefit from subsidised wages.

There was nothing, and there remains nothing, stopping anyone digging up coal in Britain on a large scale. If it ever becomes economic to do so then we can be sure that someone will do it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

ankev1 · June 2007

Maybe one day somebody will research and write a good, objective account of the subject. Oldwelshman's anecdote of Scargill having to be escorted out of the meeting puts a bit of three dimensionality into it.

Anyway I'll have to leave this discussion as my washing machine has just decided to part company with the outlet pipe mid-wash so it's bucket and mop time. Thank God the floor is tiled.

oldwelshman · June 2007

Redcogs, Nottingham voted to work and cross picket lines, we voted to work but not cross picket lines, that was 23000 miners, add them to Nottingham and I am sure that was more than 20% of the NUM membership.
You do not comment on why Arthur Scargil and the Yorkshire coal field failled to support us in 1983 when they closed 5 mines in Wales down?
Was this because none had been threatened in Yorkshire?
Was it coincidence Scargill only proposed strike when Yprkshire mines threatened with closure? Oh and none in Nottingham were threatened so this was all very devisive, but well planned!!

For some of the other absolute crap comments in here about high wages for coal miners I have absolutely no idea where they get their facts from. I worked in coal face for 4 years before the strike and never saw these fantastic wages and two of the face I worked in were awful with faults in, one was only two feet nine thick!!!
I never understood the mentality of trying to work these when we had vast reserves of known good seems but again this was all part of the bigger picture, gave excuses to close mines.

They are currently openening mones in Wales and out of curiousity called to see what the salaries were. deputies and face workers œ20 000, now thas a high salasry !!!
Anyway the worst about the strike was it halted my budding cycling career [:(!] In one year I almost got my first cat license, rode for Wales in stage race, then after too many punctures could not afford to cycle [:(!]
I made my comeback this year after 23 years [:D]

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by oldwelshman

Redcogs, Nottingham voted to work and cross picket lines, we voted to work but not cross picket lines, that was 23000 miners, add them to Nottingham and I am sure that was more than 20% of the NUM membership.
You do not comment on why Arthur Scargil and the Yorkshire coal field failled to support us in 1983 when they closed 5 mines in Wales down?
Was this because none had been threatened in Yorkshire?
Was it coincidence Scargill only proposed strike when Yprkshire mines threatened with closure? Oh and none in Nottingham were threatened so this was all very devisive, but well planned!!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i apologise oldwelshman, i think we were slightly at cross purposes.

The 20% figure that i used in an earlier post derived from the NUM figures of those actively supporting the strike once it has begun, not from the voting figures from around the UK national coalfield before it started.. i think we are both correct.

Scargill may have been mistaken not to have encouraged the National NUM to take action earlier, and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, perhaps he would have behaved differently, especially when we realise that in 1981 the Welsh and the national coalfield was rapidly shutting down courtesy of mobile picketing, at a time when the Tory government was ill prepared to weather a dispute.

i do not believe the line that Scargill didn't care about collieries closing in Wales, or that he only wanted to mobilise when Yorkshire was threatened. He and the executive of the NUM probably took a pragmatic decision to delay a dispute based on timing and balance of forces.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Well, as the American's might say, its a judgement call Ankev'.

For me, it would have been immoral for any trade union leader to preside over the enforced decimation of their member's terms and conditions of work without trying to prevent it happening, so to sit back and allow employers/governments to crush entire industries and associated communities, without encouraging resistance, would have almost been a crime against humanity.
please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Redcogs

(the voice of the middle class champagne socialist)

As to ill informed RC it appears to be you - Old Welshman was there - were you there ?

So it was perfectly moral to destroy other peoples employment with strikes and secondary picketing .No unlike you that is actual knowledge of what happened to my own family - not something I read in a newspaper.

A lot of these other workers were also union members, were paid less than miners had wives and families to support - but as they say they were only collateral damage in the class war pursued by Scargill and his ilk.

The working people of this country were not a homogeneous mass that could be used by Scargill as pawns in his revolutionary ambitions.

Scargill was a fool, I am sure many of his more pragmatic coleagues could see that with the stock piles of coal that the actions were sheer madness- Thatcher expected the attempt to bring the Govt. down - they had "previous"- she was already prepared.

Scargill had not even the brains to ballot his members and by this time the majority of the public were fed up of the continual strikes - be it the dockers , workers at the CEGB, public service workers (winter of discontent), BL

Remember the threats and intimidation (the murder of one man) that kept many miners on strike.

Through the actions of Scargill the CEGB could no longer trust the coal industry to supply coal and was not prepared to be held to ransom and decided to start obtaining imported coal later on they abandoned coal.

Once the trust was gone the mines were sure to follow as there were no longer customers to buy the coal.

Any industry where you start to threaten your main customer will falter very quickly

R P Rodgers

http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/just_ ... _Simpsons/

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
"Methinks it is a weasel"

Unknown · June 2007

Scargill was scum and his actions indefensible....

as has been seen RC by your attempts ..........

R P Rodgers

http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/just_ ... _Simpsons/

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
"Methinks it is a weasel"

oldwelshman · June 2007

A lot of these other workers were also union members, were paid less than miners had wives and families to support - but as they say they were only collateral damage in the class war pursued by Scargill and his ilk.

Scargill was a fool, I am sure many of his more pragmatic coleagues could see that with the stock piles of coal that the actions were sheer madness- Thatcher expected the attempt to bring the Govt. down - they had "previous"- she was already prepared.

Scargill had not even the brains to ballot his members and by this time the majority of the public were fed up of the continual strikes - be it the dockers , workers at the CEGB, public service workers (winter of discontent), BL

Remember the threats and intimidation (the murder of one man) that kept many miners on strike.

Through the actions of Scargill the CEGB could no longer trust the coal industry to supply coal and was not prepared to be held to ransom and decided to start obtaining imported coal later on they abandoned coal.

Once the trust was gone the mines were sure to follow as there were no longer customers to buy the coal.

Any industry where you start to threaten your main customer will falter very quickly

R P Rodgers

http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/just_ ... _Simpsons/

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
"Methinks it is a weasel"
[/quote]

Just to let you know I was on strike, and not because I was threatened, but on principle. Beleive it or not, the majority of "normal" miners believed in fighting for our jobs. There were other times where there were political strikes but this was different as we knew it was the beginning of the end.
The problem was that Scargill was scared of losing a balot so he used an old mandate for action from months earlier.
With respect to the comment about the CEGB not having confidence with NCB to purcahes coal, this is not true, the fact was they were already importing large quantities of heavily subsidised coal from eastern Eurpoe and China already.
With respect to miners wages, I do think some people seem to think we were on high wages. This might have been the case in some "super pits" but not most and a certain small percentage of many miners salaries went to various charities and organisations and we always supported causes such as Nurses, NHS staff, fire service etc.
Some people aslo seem to think we had benefits during the strike but that was not true, not a penny from anywhere. I do not think many people realise how difficult it is to live without a penny each week!!!
I actually tried "hobbling" on building sites and we would get ripped off as the site managers knew we were desperate.
We were even digging up old tip sites and selling old waste to get money and if it was not for food parcels donated by local villagers we would have starved, literally !!!
As you see in my profile I now live in Dunstable, not through choice as there is nothing left where I grew up, it is purely residential as are mmost of the mining villages in Wales.
I was one of the lucky ones that re trained and did honours degree in electronins part time ( no not subsidised, paid by me and employer) and moved away.
Would I have liked to stay in pits working? Ask any ex miner answer will nearly always be the same, yes.
Why? You will never work in an industry with such comradary and teamwork and have such close communities.
I knew every one in my village. The social life was amazing.
Where I live know I probably havent even seen somne of my neighbours more than twice in a year, and thats going out on way to work!!

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

Simon L2 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Sorry redcogs, but you haven't dealt with the minor matter of the inhabitants at all. Does it not matter to you that they had been forcibly occupied by a repressive regime in an entirely unprovoked attack? What was there to 'jaw jaw' about?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Many seem to have forgotten that Thatcher's defence cuts, which included the proposed withdrawal of HMS Endurance from service, made the Argentinian military junta think that Britain wouldn't intervene should they invade the islands.

Added later: Although redcogs hasn't forgotten - see the post two above. [:I]

What is the quote again about history being written by the victors?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Irrelevant- since when did defence cuts justify invasion? Or territorial 'claims' for that matter?

As for the last comment- er, which bits of history do you think have been re-written?

I have to say I am rather shocked by the disregard so many of you seem to have for the rights of the Falkland Islanders or the rule of international law.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

typical Daily Mail inference and unworthy of this distinguished forum

the Argentinian invasion wasn't justified - but the removal of the Endurance gave the Argentinian generals (generals that had been cosied up to by the MOD) the idea that a) the British weren't that bothered and b) they could probably get the job done and get away with it.

Now - post invasion - what was to be done? a)take the islands back with a loss of life equivalent to the entire population? or squeeze the generals for all you've got in the (probably vain) hope that they could be persuaded to make some kind of deal. The latter is an unsatisfactory end, but, dear mjones, what you fail to realise is that mistakes have to be paid for. The MOD (as in our lot) made a mistake. The outcome might have been humbling, might have been wretchedly unfair on the islanders who had said that they would be invaded if the MOD withdrew the Endurance, but there you have it. Thatcher wanted points for being stupid, and got them via the simple expedient of having lots of people killed. That's not exactly commendable.

ankev1 · June 2007

SimonL2,

like most Thatcher haters you're allowing your (however justified) hatred of her to influence any attempt at objective assessment. Nearly every war in history has involved two things: some sort of political misjudgement and unjustifiable aggression. In the case of the Falklands we supplied the first and the Argentinians managed both.

You make one extremely silly statement which distorts history:

" Thatcher wanted points for being stupid, and got them via the simple expedient of having lots of people killed. "

She went to war, which was the morally right thing to do. There has never been anything published which suggested that her prime motive for this was to save her own political skin. There is every reason to believe that she did it as a conviction politician, a character trait which she repeatedly displayed and which ultimatley led to her downfall.

It should never have come to the war - too many British servicemen died and I'll be honest here and say that I don't give a toss about the Argentinians who died - but it was good that it was fought as it demonstrated that unprovoked aggression must be punished.

There are some parallels to WW2: we appeased to much and in the end we had to fight. Here the "wrong signals" were sent and then we had to fight.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

squeeze the generals for all you've got in the (probably vain) hope that they could be persuaded to make some kind of deal. The latter is an unsatisfactory end, but, dear mjones, what you fail to realise is that mistakes have to be paid for.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And how would the generals be squeezed? And would a thoroughly nasty military dicatatorship be bothered by a few polo players being refused British work permits?

Simon L2 · June 2007

ankev1 - we disagree entirely. I have never thought that Thatcher was a conviction politician. She cut compromises whenever she felt the need. Look at her giving in on the anti-Aids propaganda.

I do think that she went to war to save her Government. Truly. That is what makes her such a special individual. The sheer unmitigiated evil of it all. As for re-invading the Falklands, well I think the deaths of all those young men are testament enough to the 'morality' of the exercise.

And Patrick - you're slipping. I accept that squeezing the generals might have borne no rewards at all other than some future condominium arrangement when Argentina found isolation too much. I also accept that Britain's cosying up to any and every South American government that bought our arms put us in an untenable position as far as squeezing is concerned. Be that as it may, the war wasn't worth it - even if it had consigned the Falkland Islanders to permanent exile on.........

Diego Garcia. Answer that one. Oh! I already did! The exiled inhabitants of Diego Garcia aren't exactly....white. Plus ca change (will somebody please tell me how to do the cedilla thingy?)

Oh Maggie how I loathed thee.....

Comments

Categories