tonyh29 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The miners strike started ... A nationalised coal industry which needed large subsidies was at odds with a Government. Radio this morning had quite a good phone in ..From the phone in , It seems a lot of people affected moved on and aren't quite so bitter about events 25 years on .. of course there will be some that for whatever reason feel unable to do so . Interesting thing from the radio that Scargill didn't ballot (all ?) the members who probably would have voted to strike .. However as the ballot didn't take place not all the miners went on strike and thus Thatcher was able to see off the threat and survive her battle with the unions where Callaghan and Heath had not .. So quick Poll Was Thatcher right ? or Was Thatcher wrong ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevillain Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Of course she was **** wrong, destroyed whole communities (labour voting ones at that). Will happily dance on the witches grave when the time comes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 5, 2009 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2009 **** Witch You may consider that a no, you could ask the same question about Scargill too and that answer would also be no too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 are you talking about just the miners situation, or Thatcher's policies as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think even if they were still open, with all the global warming issues coming out now, they would be shut down just as swiftly now. Whether global warming is true or not, our country would be under incredible pressure to close them, especially as they were heavily subsidised. It's not as if Labour have revived any of the coal mines since they have been in power, if anything they have pushed forward for gas fired power stations, which was part of the conservatives replacement fossil fuel stations after the pits were closed. The fact that RJB took over the remaining coal stations and found that it just wan't able to keep the coal industry going in such a competitive market. It just couldn't be run as a business, hence the heavy subsidies. It's quite obvious the biggest issue as a result wasn't economic at all, it was social and communities left in tatters because they relied wholy on those mines to bring work and function. Once they were shut, that was it. The good thing I think will be that in time, the importing costs of coal and other fuels will rise, and perhaps we may find ourselves resorting to re-opening mines in 50 years time to try and maintain self sufficient power. I think once renewable energies make up a larger portion of our countries power source, they might be room to start mining again. Especially as Oil is going to go up as the resource runs out. If there is any coal left in any of those mines, they will get utilised eventually. unless we do what the French and Japanese have done and just go Nuclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 5, 2009 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think even if they were still open, with all the global warming issues coming out now, they would be shut down just as swiftly now. Whether global warming is true or not, our country would be under incredible pressure to close them, especially as they were heavily subsidised. Explain why they are actually reopening mines in South Wales then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 Of course she was **** wrong, destroyed whole communities So how do you feel about Abercrave, ynyscedwyn, seven sisters .. which were all closed in the 60's long before Thatcher came to power ? in fact all in all under various labour governments 337 pits have closed ......(More Nationalised pits closed per year in office UK wide under Labour than Tory, the ratio is about 29:21) Under nationalisation by the Labour Government there were mayor investments in mines however many other mines were closed to man and fund these mines. So , why was Thatcher the destroyer of communities ?? it does seem that for whatever reason the view of the mining industry is very blinkered when it come to history ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think even if they were still open, with all the global warming issues coming out now, they would be shut down just as swiftly now. Whether global warming is true or not, our country would be under incredible pressure to close them, especially as they were heavily subsidised. Explain why they are actually reopening mines in South Wales then? because it is probably cheaper and generates more jobs than renewable? perhaps global warming is a load of shit? perhaps they want to get a few more votes? perhaps those mines can be mined in a safer, controlled manner and that they aren't deep mines? perhaps the infastructure at those mines means the cost of re-opening them is a lot less than anywhere else? I do think we should have a few mines open, but to try and have the mining industry we used to have would be just complete madness, especially in these times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevillain Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Of course she was **** wrong, destroyed whole communities So , why was Thatcher the destroyer of communities ?? I hereby extend a friendly invite to come and see the old pit villages in the north east, where you will see nothing but social deprevation, whole families now reliant on the social, the work ethic destroyed. yes there have been opportunities for some (Nissan), but for many the chances of a fulfilling life have been removed Seen 'Billy Elliot'? well little has changed in those villages in terms of housing, social structure etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 tony, it is the way you close it down that counts, coal mines will run out of economic coal no onequestions that but to many it was as if Thatch wanted revenge on the miners and she brought in a man known for the harsh ways he dealt with it of course now with clean coal technology becoming more effiencet and thus cheaper we still have 400 years supply it is likely as Bicks says that mines will reopen check out the battle of Orgreave and just how many miners were convicted (clue none) and howe much the polic had to pay out to understand the feorcity in which thatch used the shock and awe tactics of the police to crush normal working peopel of which she had so much disdain for the day she dies is the day in many pit communities there will be parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 So , why was Thatcher the destroyer of communities ?? I hereby extend a friendly invite to come and see the old pit villages in the north east OK , maybe I should have phrased the question better .. why is it ONLY Thatcher appears to be seen as the destroyer of communities when the pit closures in Wales which also decimated communities , happened long before she came to power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 So , why was Thatcher the destroyer of communities ?? I hereby extend a friendly invite to come and see the old pit villages in the north east OK , maybe I should have phrased the question better .. why is it ONLY Thatcher appears to be seen as the destroyer of communities when the pit closures in Wales which also decimated communities , happened long before she came to power don't you understand it is the way that she did it ? check out the pictures of the time and the massed ranks of the police that were designed to 'shock and awe' state power at it's worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 So , why was Thatcher the destroyer of communities ?? I hereby extend a friendly invite to come and see the old pit villages in the north east OK , maybe I should have phrased the question better .. why is it ONLY Thatcher appears to be seen as the destroyer of communities when the pit closures in Wales which also decimated communities , happened long before she came to power don't you understand it is the way that she did it ? check out the pictures of the time and the massed ranks of the police that were designed to 'shock and awe' state power at it's worse Ian I don't agree with you very often mate but ^ is exactly how I see it too. The only flaw in our view is that I don't know how else she could have overcome a militant union. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Looking at the various articles about the history of coal mining and the way in which it was handled. It is quite clear that they were phased out too quickly. Ofcourse it needed to happen but there was no opportunity for communities to find alternatives to working in the mines. Also the use of police NOT from the local area could be seen in two lights. The fact local police might sympathise with the locals and not control the picket lines properly and the flip side that the government were being heavy handed in bringing in loads of police from other areas. This would naturally increase tension. Scargill seemed a man on a mission with no regard for the Unions or anyone else. He sounds dodgy as **** and unfortunately for the NUM he was their leader. He sounds just as guilty of stiring up a class war as Thatcher. Someone mentioned "The Battle of Orgreave", just sounds like they employed offensive tactics which always ends up being negative. ANyone remember the Italian riot police dishing beats on numerous occasions? it's always a bad idea. Riot police are there to protect, not attack. I listened to a guy from Derbyshire on BBC that broke the picket lines to go back to work. By the sounds of it the picket lines were far from friendly towards them. I think without the police there to try and manage things there would certainly have been more deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 So , why was Thatcher the destroyer of communities ?? I hereby extend a friendly invite to come and see the old pit villages in the north east OK , maybe I should have phrased the question better .. why is it ONLY Thatcher appears to be seen as the destroyer of communities when the pit closures in Wales which also decimated communities , happened long before she came to power don't you understand it is the way that she did it ? check out the pictures of the time and the massed ranks of the police that were designed to 'shock and awe' state power at it's worse Ian I don't agree with you very often mate but ^ is exactly how I see it too. The only flaw in our view is that I don't know how else she could have overcome a militant union. Any ideas? you'd leave them to it and move in IF things got really nasty. More likely to have the whole country on your side then. What if the police weren't there and the pickets got violent towards the people wanting to work? remember it was an unofficial strike wasn't it? no ballot was taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 In the early 70s the unions, and the NUM in particular, with their bully boy tactics, brought down a democratically elected British government. Thatcher took the bullies on, dragged them behind the bike sheds and gave them a good kicking to make sure that they could never do it again. Only socialists would think that flying pickets and 'show of hands' ballots were fair, because bullying has always been the only way of progressing the socialist cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 it is a good point on how scargill should have been dealt with and history can only show us the result of one descion maybe if Thatch had been willing to talk and bring in a less 'milliantant' boss then maybe something could have been sorted but we don;t know, history only shows the events and consequences of one course of action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 maybe if Thatch had been willing to talk and bring in a less 'milliantant' boss then maybe something could have been sorted You know that nothing like that could ever have happened, even if Thatcher had been 'willing' The destruction of the miners was as much down to Scargill as it was Thatcher, if not more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 bullying has always been the only way of progressing the socialist cause. NOT this. :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Wronger than a very wrong thing in wrongsville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts