Miners Strike

[Nibble]

Easy to say, harder to prove.

Empirical evidence just doesn't seem to back that up though does it. Jakarta's post kind of sums it up, coal being shipped in from around teh World was cheaper, and often of better quality.

If there was still a profit to be made, how come no-one has bought up these old mines, re-opened them and cashed in? We hear plenty about non-renewable fuel sources being scarce, and the labour in these areas would be cheap because of the horrific levels of unemployment that many of these areas still suffer, so why has no-one ever mined these areas since?

They do.

 

[Spiros]

Ahh the sweet smell of innocent naivety......

The National Conference of the NUM had already approved the strike.

Ah yes, all of the union officials had approved the strike. Don't recall them actually asking the members themselves if they wanted it though. My recollection of events is rusty - it was 30 years ago and reporting on both sides was biased and downright inaccurate at the time - but I do remember seeing a miner being interviewed and complaining bitterly that non-one had asked him whether he wanted to go on strike.

 

[Gritt23]

Did the coal run out then? Everywhere? Really? Did Scargill think a strike would create more coal?

Of course not, you don't sudden;y hear someone shout "that's all folks, this is the last piece of coal." What happens is that you have to dig deeper and deeper for the coal, and that obviously becomes increasingly more expensive. There comes a point when it no longer becomes economical, because other countries have better quality coal, and coal that is more cheaply mined. Economic reality unfortunately, not a case of Mrs Hubbard looking down her mine and seeing it was bare.

As for Scargills agenda, I think it was quite clear that he wanted to unseat the Government who dared to stand up to the unions, and see a return to a more union friendly Labour government. Unfortunately for him, the reality was that the country wouldn't vote in another labour government until they rebranded themselves to distance themselves from the sort of Labour government that Arthur was hoping to see again.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Scargill should have had a ballot he would have won. He didn't and eventually he lost the strike. He played into Thatcher's hands brilliantly I'm almost wondering if it was a set up.

 

[Gritt23]

They do.

To what scale? How many, and where are they, compared to the numbers of mines that were operating?

 

[JCL666]

Easy to say, harder to prove.

Empirical evidence just doesn't seem to back that up though does it. Jakarta's post kind of sums it up, coal being shipped in from around teh World was cheaper, and often of better quality.

If there was still a profit to be made, how come no-one has bought up these old mines, re-opened them and cashed in? We hear plenty about non-renewable fuel sources being scarce, and the labour in these areas would be cheap because of the horrific levels of unemployment that many of these areas still suffer, so why has no-one ever mined these areas since?

Some were reopened after they were privatised. Into the 90s the UK was still producing 50 million tons of coal a year.

There were also others that could not be re-opened as they had become unsafe due to the lack of maintenance throughout the strike.

Personally I think it's the economic legacy that it left in mining communities that the government of the time should be ashamed of. In the ones I have been to, there is nothing.
No hope of work for the younger generation and when I was there it was 20 years since the pits closed. How they will fare now after the more recent events (recession etc), is beyond me.

 

[Gritt23]

Scargill should have had a ballot he would have won. He didn't and eventually he lost the strike. He played into Thatcher's hands brilliantly I'm almost wondering if it was a set up.

I must admit, THAT is the bit I would happily be educated on by this thread, rather than just seeing the same tired old arguments being trawled over again (is Barnes any good, anyone?).

Why didn't Scargill call a ballot of the members, when it looked a sure thing he would win it? i honestly don't know, and don't think I ever did.

 

[JCL666]

Scargill should have had a ballot he would have won. He didn't and eventually he lost the strike. He played into Thatcher's hands brilliantly I'm almost wondering if it was a set up.

Ridley Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Simster]

Easy to say, harder to prove.

Empirical evidence just doesn't seem to back that up though does it. Jakarta's post kind of sums it up, coal being shipped in from around teh World was cheaper, and often of better quality.

If there was still a profit to be made, how come no-one has bought up these old mines, re-opened them and cashed in? We hear plenty about non-renewable fuel sources being scarce, and the labour in these areas would be cheap because of the horrific levels of unemployment that many of these areas still suffer, so why has no-one ever mined these areas since?

I can accept that mining coal in this country was at some point going to become unviable. However, just letting them close as Thatcher did is an absolutely shit example of macro economic management. Closing down the mines cost thousands their jobs. Which in turn cost thousands more their livelihoods in lost income at shops that no longer had miner customers. Which in turn closes down businesses. And how much money does it all cost? Well, for a start, there is the loss in tax revenue from all of these sources, then the fact that benefits start needing to be paid to out of work miners. Plus crime soars as unemployment rises, and we all know what the miner's strike did to community relations with the police.

And then the fact that it costs a lot of money to re-start up any small business after predecessors have gone to the wall. It's the same argument as what we're seeing now. If we slash public expenditure on everything, we risk our future. Say, road maintenance is slashed: all those pot hole filling companies go to the wall. Then when we decide to spend the money fixing the roads, we have no-one to fix them because our pot-holers have all gone bust - so we have to import pot hole filling services. So closing down anything on a large scale is folly.

Our nation would have been better off with a staggered plan of mine closure, where mines were closed as new investment (and jobs) were attracted into those communities. Simply subsidising our coal mining in the interim would have been far more cost effective than just washing our hands of the whole industry.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I suspect many more people hate blair for taking us into a war we should not be in

I wouldn't be confident of that.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Judging from some of what I read on here I expect I will get buckets of abuse from the pro-tory mob for posting this. I am in the middle of reading David Peace's book GB84 which is all about the miners strike and have been looking at footage on Youtube. I came across this haunting piece, beautiful music and sobering images. I truly hate Thatcher for what she did to these people and how she completely destroyed the relationship between communities and the police in the pit areas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOVwewzTi-8&feature=fvwrel

How many did Labour shut in the 10 years prior to Thatcher to balance the debate, do tell?

 

[Nibble]

To what scale? How many, and where are they, compared to the numbers of mines that were operating?

Not a very large scale. It's too expensive these days.

 

[Gritt23]

There were also others that could not be re-opened as they had become unsafe due to the lack of maintenance throughout the strike.

And therein lies the flawed logic of strikes, because the length of strike, and the lack of maintenance of equipment during this period only makes it more likely that MORE closures happen. It's the case in a lot of businesses, but in an industry that is so dangerous to start with, and where equipment was probably needing pretty regular maintenance, it just exacerbated the problem.

It's one thing to try to argue with the Givernment that one mine or another could stay open and remain economic, but the longer teh strike continued the harder that argument would become to win, because of the reasons you give.

 

[Gritt23]

Not a very large scale. It's too expensive these days.

Exactly!

 

[Nibble]

Exactly!

Alright Barbara, keep yer Alan's on. This is 30 years later.

 

[Beach Hut]

I wouldn't be confident of that.

I would, remind me where are those weapons of mass destruction ?

 

[Simster]

As for Scargills agenda, I think it was quite clear that he wanted to unseat the Government who dared to stand up to the unions, and see a return to a more union friendly Labour government. Unfortunately for him, the reality was that the country wouldn't vote in another labour government until they rebranded themselves to distance themselves from the sort of Labour government that Arthur was hoping to see again.

I'm not arguing that Scargill didn't have his own agenda, but it saddens me to think that Thatcherites can white wash everything that went on with this idea that Scargill deliberately manipulated a mass of mute miners as if there was nothing at stake except the future of the Tories in government. It's a nonsense. Thousands of British workers lost their jobs over this, arguably needlessly.

 

[Gritt23]

I can accept that mining coal in this country was at some point going to become unviable. However, just letting them close as Thatcher did is an absolutely shit example of macro economic management. Closing down the mines cost thousands their jobs. Which in turn cost thousands more their livelihoods in lost income at shops that no longer had miner customers. Which in turn closes down businesses. And how much money does it all cost? Well, for a start, there is the loss in tax revenue from all of these sources, then the fact that benefits start needing to be paid to out of work miners. Plus crime soars as unemployment rises, and we all know what the miner's strike did to community relations with the police.

And then the fact that it costs a lot of money to re-start up any small business after predecessors have gone to the wall. It's the same argument as what we're seeing now. If we slash public expenditure on everything, we risk our future. Say, road maintenance is slashed: all those pot hole filling companies go to the wall. Then when we decide to spend the money fixing the roads, we have no-one to fix them because our pot-holers have all gone bust - so we have to import pot hole filling services. So closing down anything on a large scale is folly.

Our nation would have been better off with a staggered plan of mine closure, where mines were closed as new investment (and jobs) were attracted into those communities. Simply subsidising our coal mining in the interim would have been far more cost effective than just washing our hands of the whole industry.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, as the wide ranging economic damage caused is undoubtedly true. All the spiral of events you describe are exactly right. BUT, how much of this was worsened by teh fact that we were left with an industry in the tatters of a long running strike. How much damage did that do to pits?

As someone has already said, the actually production of coal in this country was still a very high number of tonnes into teh 90s, whereas you could read a couple of views on the events of the 80s, and think we completely stopped all production. We didn't.

 

[Simster]

I would, remind me where are those weapons of mass destruction ?

There is no way on Gods earth that Blair is hated as much as Thatcher in this country. Absolutely no way.

 

[Beach Hut]

There is no way on Gods earth that Blair is hated as much as Thatcher in this country. Absolutely no way.

Prove it then, all ears