[Closed] Miners strike (quick question)

Oh and Vic I dont think Scargill was motivated by some grant soviet scheme. He was doing his job for his members.

Thatcher felt she had to crush [b]A[/b] union (just any union) to make the point that she wouldn't be held to the same extent as previous governments.

The NUM just happened to be next in line, and Scargill was perfectly happy to go to war over the point, to the extent that he refused to allow the strike to go to ballot for fear of losing it.

I can't say that Thatcher was right, far from, but equally I don't hold quite the same levels of vitriol for her that others do. That's their choice. But maybe the same people should also consider Scargill's role in this - he could have significantly changed the course of the strike if he'd acted differently too.

I didn't grow up in a mining area, but have friends who did and whose families did, and many of them will be equally happy when he goes.

Not sure it'll answer your questions but tonight (Monday 9th March 2100 - 2200, BBC4) there's a one hour documentary on the strike - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0078ntp ]clicky[/url]

"Documentary which captures the extraordinary passions unleashed by the 1984 miners' strike and examines how it changed Britain forever. Mining villages were consumed by violence and hatred as pickets fought running battles with police and striking and working miners were locked in confrontation.

With powerful interviews, evocative archive and dramatic reconstructions, the film follows the lives of five young miners from one village through a torrid but exciting year."

Also for an miners strike/adventure (climbing) combo would recommend Andy Cave's Learning to Breathe - [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Learning-Breathe-Andy-Cave/dp/009180034X ]clicky[/url]. Excellent book.

Thanks for the link, I will definitely watch that program.

From searching around it seems the tin foil hat brigade feel all this coverage of the strikes and the Police (and Armys) response might be being covered in detail at the moment to discourage protesters in the summer.

.... and the Police (and Armys) response.......

The British Army was never used alongside the Police during the Miners Strike.

It was considered at one point due to the huge amount of over-stretch the Police were suffering but the decision was made not to use the Army. Primarily the driving force for this decision was the fact that the bulk of the Army at the time were recruited from what were traditionally mining areas and there was a fear that deploying troops against 'their own' could cause decent among the ranks and possibly lead to a mutiny.

Just a quick post on some of the [url= http://www.election.demon.co.uk/ ]electoral statistics.[/url]
There's much been said in here implying that Maggie was despised, not just by the miners, but by a far wider constituency. At the time, that certainly wasnt reflected in the electoral results both before 1984 and after.

In 1979, Thatcher was voted into power with a relatively modest 11% parliamentary majority over the Labour opposition.

In the 1983 election, just 9 months before the miner's strike began, Thatcher was relected with a dramatically increased majority of 29% (61% vs 32%) on a manifesto that specifically pledged to [url= http://www.conservative-party.net/manifestos/1983/1983-conservative-manifesto.shtml ]set a better balance between trade unions and the rest of society[/url] and effect

Trade Union Reforms

Even in after the strike braking, in 1987 her majority was only cut to 23%.

She had a poltical mandate, from a very large electoral body. Whilst the deomcratic system is designed to protect the minority whilst carrying out the will of the majority, sometimes there's going to be losers, but you cant always blame the politicians who are hardwired to meet the desires of the majority of the electorate. The same accusations can be levied at Blair, voted in on a popular promise, and RE-ELECTED in 2005 despite a popular movement against the 2003 Iraq war decision.

Primarily the driving force for this decision was the fact that the bulk of the Army at the time were recruited from what were traditionally mining areas and there was a fear that deploying troops against 'their own' could cause decent among the ranks and possibly lead to a mutiny.

Just about sums up the whole ethos of her twisted regime. Wouldn't think twice about setting the army upon her own people, so long as they didn't turn round and set about her.

ton - I was kidding, and while I didn't grow up in a mining area I am not Thatcher's biggest fan, and I dread to think what would have happened to NI (where i grew up) had the IRA killed her.

Interesting article by Scargill himself in the Guardian on the weekend [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/07/arthur-scargill-miners-strike ]here[/url], and just for balance, there's the comment section [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/07/scargill-miners-strike-thatcher ]here[/url].

Like many people on this thread have said, it's not something I know a great deal about as I was a young child at the time but from what I can derive from all the information, there were mistakes made on both sides (perhaps an understatement) however it was a calculated effort on the government's part to tear apart an industry and a movement in order to regain the upper hand over the working classes. I strongly believe that this had the knock on effect of decimating general manufacturing and heavy industry in the uk, which has indirectly lead us to the point we're at today.

FWIW, I'm by no means a socialist (although from a socialist background) and I don't necessarily trust modern trades unions from my experiences with them. I do however believe that everyone has the right to work in a fair, safe and secure job for reasonable recompense, which is what that strike took away from so many people.

Christian

"There is no such thing as Society" is a quote that still makes me shudder, not because of it's ignorance and stupidity,but because it was the core belief of her philosophy.

Ah, the classic Thatcher mis quote.

If you take it in the context of a quesiton on woman's Hour about requests for government intervention, then it bears a different reading. Yes, it comes from the conservative tradition of self-help, but it was not - [i]in the context[/i] - intended to be a manifesto for greed.

And, in full, here it is:

[i]They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.[/i]

As for the suggestion that Thatcher was out to break the working man, I find that luaghable. I can quite understand that Thatcher wanted to break trade union power - even now, I am not sure we would like a return to the depths of the 70s, where unions held large parts our manufacturing base to ransom - and the NUM, with the equally arrogant and hard line Scargill.

However, the 1984 miners' strinke did not exist on its own, but it had context: [url] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/6/newsid_4207000/4207111.stm [/url]. We had been here before, with the country reduced to a three day week as a result of the stand-off between Heath and the NUM.

The point is this: Thatcher was about power. And for her, the greatest threat to her power came from the unions. so, she set out to break them (NUM, GCHQ, etc.). And she did.

People are quite right that the social fall out from that is still felt today - although quite why Northerners think they are the only people affected, I'll never undertsand. There are many things she did right, and many things she did wrong, but assuming it was all one way traffic in 1984 is incorrect. She wielded her power bluntly - nowadays the imposition of power on each of us is rather more insidious.

In 1979, Thatcher was voted into power with a relatively modest 11% parliamentary majority over the Labour opposition.

In the 1983 election, just 9 months before the miner's strike began, Thatcher was relected with a dramatically increased majority of 29% (61% vs 32%) on a manifesto that specifically pledged to set a better balance between trade unions and the rest of society and effect

This is very misleading. The conservatives were very clever manipulators and employed all manner of tactics ie boundary changes, ex pat votes etc in order to increase their stranglehold. The reality is that the 79 govt were installed on gaining %42.44 of the public vote and re elected in 83 on %43.87. Hardly a massive swing in public opinion, especially given the so called feel good factor of the Falklands.

I think we're missing the small matter of using the police (mainly shipped in from the Met) to enforce political objectives rather than uphold the law.
No I'm not saying that the miners or other affiliated pickets were all choir boys but arresting or refusing access to areas of Derbyshire, East Nottinghamshire & South Yorkshire to journalists or anyone suspected of being journalists wasn't exactly comply with the law either.

trailmonkey - the difference between popular vote and parliamentary seats is even greater today:

[img] [/img]

whose been manipulating what then?

i aplogise for the statement i made regarding the i.r.a failing to kill thatcher. it was a stupid comment.
but i know loads of families personally that were devestated by the effects of the strike and it's further consequences.
i do believe that the woman ruined the counry.

Richie_B - The complaint that the police were there to enforce a political objectives rather than the law is a bit of a red herring.

The main reason the large amounts of police were brought in in the first place was to allow those who made a lawful decision to not go out on an (initially) illegal strike were not hindered in their lawful business. Whilst the decision with led to the flying pickets was political the police were upholding laws.

As an aside to that though, have the police ever truly operated free from politics? Who makes the laws?

trailmonkey, Thatcher was voted in in '79 with a popular vote of 44% to 37% Labour. In 1983 the popular vote admittedly fell slightly to 42%, but Labour's share fell off a cliff to 28%. In 1987 Labour had only recovered to 31% against Tories 42% again.

The first past the post system will always distort the parliamentary representation. Personally I am all for PR and an increase in single issue parties to create a more cooperative mode of government rather than the mudslinging combatative sort we have today.

Stoner, the object of my post wasn't to score party points but to highlight the innacuracy of citing parliamentry majority in relation to public votes cast. Your example only serves to confirm my standpoint.

BTW, the figures for the 2005 election are quite shocking. I had no idea that this govt were so unpopular even back then. A majority of 65 by gaining 35.19% of the vote. Mother of all democracies my ar$3.

ourmaninthenorth

I didn't mention 'The North'.
It would appear to be yourself with the greasy shoulder.

It's not a misquote. I am fully aware of when and where it was said and in what context.

It was purely designed to make the greedy feel less guilty about themselves. I see no ambiguity.

fair point tm. In which case the "difference" majority figures based on popular vote would have gone from:

11%, 29%, 23% to 7%, 14% and 12% for 1979, 1983 and 1987 respectively.

still a significant jump from '79 to '83.

I didn't mention 'The North'

You may not have but it is the usual next step in any discussion about the Miner's Strike in my ever-so-humble experience.

Its usually turns into North/Labour vs South/Tories and fails completely to take into account large parts of the North that have voted blue since the Tories were formed and large parts of the South (including a huge amount of that there London) that would only ever vote red as thats what they've always done. It also fails to take into account the large amount of Kentishmen and Men of Kent who lost their jobs when the many mines in Kent were closed after their huge support for the strike (Kentish miners were the only ones who voted to continue the strike at the end).

sootyandjim

Excellent point. Regionalism has no place in this discussion.
It's a divide and conquer tactic, designed to distract.

trailmonkey - Member

That's an interesting point. Two years prior, Thatcher was busy drowning Argentinians and certainly would have found it difficult killing people in two theatres.

A little controversial. I do remember miners killing people by chucking concrete blocks through the car though....

breatheeasy
i remember thatcher private bodyguard (the met) killing people by beating them to death with truncheons and trampling them with riot horses...
2 sides to every argument.

can't be bothered to post a big reply which i had in my head but... but we will be partying in the valleys when the witch finally takes the lift down to hell!

yes i am bitter and twisted but growing up seeing it first hand it's naturally effected me.

waihiboy
ditto mate...

It's a divide and conquer tactic, designed to distract.

Have a look at the references to the North in posts above.

There were plenty of collieries not in the North, and yet the concept of being a "working" man (or woman*) is something that appears more prevalent in the self-identified North. And, yet, the reality for those affected by the clsoure of coal mines is quite different - the spead of those whose life was concentrated around mining towns and villages does not exist solely in the North, as sootyandjim has righfully identified.

It's not a misquote. I am fully aware of when and where it was said and in what context.

In which case you will agree that it is nothing more than the standard - not particularly right wing - view that help comes first from the self and then to others. You appear to assume that the quote states that one should help oneself [i]at the expense of[/i] others, which to my mind (and including the context in which it was made) it does not.

Were Thatcher someone with the background of Alan Clark - or, latterly Cameron or Osborne - I might be more inclined to view her work as a person of privilege smashing the common man, but somehow I don't see that. Instead, I see it only as ego and power; and breaking the unions was, for the times, a real triumph of that (as was the Flaklands war, but we'll come onto that another time).

*No, we're not descending into Life of Brian here

ourmaninthenorth
70% of the men finished were from the yorkshire north nottingham coal field.

If the pits are that profitable why are they still closed?

Perhaps have a read about the Tower colliery. It was my Dad's local pit, although he never worked there. The pits are not being reopened because when they're not being maintained, they flood, collapse etc and it becomes terribly expensive to re-open them. It'll happen tho, and possibly not too far in the future.

Ah, Fatcha...

I for one, will stand side by side with Ton, and indeed the millions of others, who will surely rejoice when that evil, evil woman dies. I'm quite prepared to cheer, an celebrate, as the hearse goes by.

I would not wish any evil on another Human Being, under normal circumstances. But Thatcher forfeited her right to be treated as Human, by her actions. Yes, we did despair when she survived the Brighton Bombing.

Here in the East End, she was hated. In London, we had the Print Workers dispute at Wapping, where she used the Police as her private army, to help her mate Murdoch crush the strike. The strikers; men who would never work again. Men who lost their homes. Men who could no longer feed their children.

And we had various disputes at Ford's plant in Dagenham, which led to thousands losing heir jobs. Workers no longer protected by Unions, as Thatcher had changed the Laws.

We had Race Riots; fuelled by mass-unemployment, economic hardship and social dissatisfaction. Fuelled by greedy, selfish Thatcherite policies and ideals.

The Falklands; a completely avoidable and utterly pointless war, which claimed the lives of over 800 people. Hundreds of which died on a ship sailing AWAY from the exclusion zone. For why? So she could demonstrate British weapon making capabilities. Over 800 people died, so she could have a shop front for weapons of mass destruction.

Margaret Thatcher never cared about ordinary people. Never. She cared for the wealthy elite, and no-one else. 'I'm all right Jack- **** you', was her philosophy.

Britain has never had as evil a Prime Minister, surely. That woman crushed the Working People's ability to be part of the Democratic Process. Divide, and Rule, with an Iron Fist.

Good for this country? Anyone who defends her, or her government's actions, is seriously deluded. This nation is in the state it is in now, because of that woman, and her selfish, grabbing, uncaring policies. That's a fact. And no politician since has had the balls to reverse that situation.

I'll be there, as the cortege drives past.

And I'll raise a pint, all right.

A pint of milk.

Thatcher was actually drowning Argentineans? She gets about a bit.

Oh, you mean the Belgrano thing?

Couldn't the Argentinian government be as cupable if not more so in the deaths of all those sailors for sending a relic of WW2 against a navy armed with nuclear-powered hunter/killer submarines?

Oh now comes the 'Exclusion Zone' thing, something that only has standing under international law in the respect of neutral vessels, not those of belligerent states, even less so after the message sent via the Swiss Embassy to Argentina on the 23rd April which states,

In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

As Rear-Admiral Allara comander of the Belgrano task group i quoted on record "[i]After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano.[/i]."

Blame Thatcher for many things but the sinking of the Belgrano, although regrettable (though not preventable by the Argentineans), was legal.

Anyway, thats slightly off thread.

Sooty; give it up, mate. Just admit the truth, which you know anyway.

The sinking of the Belgrano was in no way 'legal'.

Sooty; you seem like an intelligent person. Please, go and find some facts, seek the truth.

That woman was evil, mate. She cares for you, as much as she does for me. Or Ton. Or any other ordinary person in this nation.

Don't get me started on Pinochet...

Back to the original post for a moment, my step-dad earnt [b]£32k [/b]in his last year as a miner in 1988. So yes, they were earning a lot but it was a filthy, & dangerous job.

The stuff could be shipped 8k miles around the world & still be cheaper than the stuff dug out 10 miles away. So simple economics meant that something had to give eventually. The fact that it happened to be Thatcher who was PM at the time simply made the situation worse as she was no stranger to smashing the stranglehold of trade unions, & the manner in which the closure program was rolled out simply did the govt' no favours. She cut her teeth fighting the print unions I seem to remember.

As for the pits, the sad truth is that a good few were coming to the end of their natural lives anyway. But, a good few could have been perfectly viable ongoing concerns. They would have required some major reforms though, not least the disbanding of the NCB, who had allowed things to become so bad through poor management. Had they passed to private ownership then a good few 100k miners could have remained employed until they re-trained / found other work. The truth remained that there were far too many miners than the demand for coal needed.

ourmaninthenorth,

Taken in isolation, your point seems reasonable, especially to anyone too young to have been around at the time.

However, look at it in the context of her monetary policies, deregulation of the financial services industry, lack of support for any of the communities affected, tax reforms, educational policies etc, etc.
She believed in her free market,trickle-down dream. That's why she was so, so, dangerous.

Please don't attempt to justify her divisive right-wing fundamentalism as a power trip. She was far too intelligent for that.

We should never forget what this woman did, and anyone who attempts to rehabilitate her, for whatever reason, is helping to ensure that the same mistakes will be made twice in the same generation.

I take it you are a Southerner 'exiled' in the North?
Bitter is a drink mate, not a suggestion as to attitude.
Don't feel regionalism has any place in this discussion, but it does seem to bother you.

RB - Read Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. I did as part of my research for my BA in Military History dissertation. Whilst not the most riveting read it will provide many of the answers you so surely seek.

Other than that I'm not going to belittle what I've already stated as it is correct.

Hate Thatcher for whatever you like but the sinking of the Belgrano was legal in the eyes of international law and only those who have an axe to grind for other reasons over Thatcher and bitter, ex-Juntaist Argentineans perpetuate the myth that it was anything other than.

Whether she cares for me matters not one jott, I'm only correcting the often incorrectly stated comment that the sinking was illegal. Whether it was moral is a completely different matter of course.

[i]Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response[/i]

'approach' usually indicates motion towards, doesn't it?

AndyP - What about

In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

or,

All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

Selected quoting to support a specific viewpoint, classic STW behaviour.

sooty

Do you think it may be defendable in law and yet [morally ] indefensible?
How much threat were we under from the [your description]relic of WW2 when it was sailing away when Thatcher gave the order to sink it?

[i] All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

Selected quoting to support a specific viewpoint, classic STW behaviour. [/i]

The Belgrano wasn't an aircraft. I selected the bit about ships. HTH.

Yeah, Sooty; it was sailing away. Even top British politicians and military personnel have admitted this. IE, it posed no actual threat at the time it was attacked.

'Legal'? What do you mean, 'Legal'? There's no legality in War; biggest gun wins...

Thatcher was an evil woman. Stop defending her.

Classic STW behaviour ignoring the question
so

'approach' usually indicates motion towards, doesn't it?

It's good to see that most people still have knee jerk reactions that haven't changed in over 20 years as soon as you mention Thatch or King Arthur.

In a desperate attempt to move things on, I wonder how many of the people who were in support of the miners in the 80s are in support of the climate protestors now?

Do you think it may be defendable in law and yet [morally ] indefensible?

Such things do exist. Whether this is one of them is open to discussion.

How much threat were we under from the [your description]relic of WW2 when it was sailing away when Thatcher gave the order to sink it?

Although an old ship the ARA General Belgrano was still fitted with some very powerful weapons, namely her main armament of 15" guns that could have caused a huge amount of danger at long range to the British fleet.

An aside was that sinking the Belgrano caused the Argentinean navy to withdrawal all its forces back to port, including its aircraft carrier that could have supplied the attack aircraft of the air force with fighter cover, a lack of which later proved decisive.

Not a good comparison, Porterclough.

Although Climate Change/pollution etc is an issue that is vitally important. I try to do everything I can, to minimise my 'carbon footprint', so I spose I'm already supporting them, in a way. As are many others, I'd imagine.

Although an old ship the ARA General Belgrano was still fitted with some very powerful weapons, namely her main armament of 15" guns that could have caused a huge amount of danger at long range to the British fleet.

In London, we had the Print Workers dispute at Wapping, where she used the Police as her private army, to help her mate Murdoch crush the strike. The strikers; men who would never work again. Men who lost their homes. Men who could no longer feed their children.