The Miners' Strike and me... STV

124678

Comments

  • TRIPSTRIPS Posts: 3,714
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You cannot be serious. Scargill refused all attempts at negotiation. He wanted victory on his terms, and nothing less. His intention was to bring down the Govt.

    There was a documentary five years ago which covered this. In Oct, a good deal was on the table, that most of the union team thought was reasonable, but Scargill refused to discuss it.

    Kinnock was on the programme, and said that was pretty much when Labour gave up on the miners.
    You may well quote this as a fact but it doesn't really add up. how could the miners be offered any deal that was relevant to the strike of 84, the government had denied there was a hit list of 75 pits to be closed. this would not have even been discussed.
    So just what did the miners turn down in October 83 that would have averted the strike.
    You are conveniently forgetting what Hesseltine mentioned on the documentary the other night, the plans were drawn up 2 years before they forced the strike, fact is the government wanted this strike,they did not want a deal.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TRIPS wrote: »
    You may well quote this as a fact but it doesn't really add up. how could the miners be offered any deal that was relevant to the strike of 84, the government had denied there was a hit list of 75 pits to be closed. this would not have even been discussed.
    So just what did the miners turn down in October 83 that would have averted the strike.
    You are conveniently forgetting what Hesseltine mentioned on the documentary the other night, the plans were drawn up 2 years before they forced the strike, fact is the government wanted this strike,they did not want a deal.

    I cant remember the details, but various people from all sides had agreed the offer was a good one, but Scargill wouldn't even discuss it. Kinnock was on, and confirmed it, and said that was the last straw for Labour support of him.
  • TRIPSTRIPS Posts: 3,714
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I cant remember the details, but various people from all sides had agreed the offer was a good one, but Scargill wouldn't even discuss it. Kinnock was on, and confirmed it, and said that was the last straw for Labour support of him.
    Yes but how was this relevant to the miners strike of 84. there could have been nothing in that deal to stop the secret pit closures as that's what they were, secret.
    Your trying to put a case up that the miners turned down something in Oct 83 that could have averted the 84 dispute.
    This is impossible, they must have been 2 separate issues.
  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    Quite pathetic it is too. Those who didn't want to go along with the madness were treated very badly, and still are to this day.

    For some, this strike was their war, and they still live what they see as the glory of it. Brainwashed by Scargill at the time, and they still are.

    I think there was a far greater likelihood of the British people being brainwashed by the lies that they were told by the government and the NCB via a rabid Right wing press (that recently came to light) than the truth about pit closures that the NUM were telling them at the time.

    Don't you?
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think there was a far greater likelihood of the British people being brainwashed by the lies that they were told by the government and the NCB via a rabid Right wing press (that recently came to light) than the truth about pit closures that the NUM were telling them at the time.

    Don't you?

    No. Scargill had his own motivations, and he was not going to give an inch. At that time union power was huge, and he thought himself the biggest of the lot, believing he could bring down another Govt.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TRIPS wrote: »
    Yes but how was this relevant to the miners strike of 84. there could have been nothing in that deal to stop the secret pit closures as that's what they were, secret.
    Your trying to put a case up that the miners turned down something in Oct 83 that could have averted the 84 dispute.
    This is impossible, they must have been 2 separate issues.

    Did I say Oct '83? It was Oct '84 when a resolution seemed to have been reached, and Scargill wouldn't entertain any discussion of it.
  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    No. Scargill had his own motivations, and he was not going to give an inch. At that time union power was huge, and he thought himself the biggest of the lot, believing he could bring down another Govt.

    You completely ignored my central point about the British public being lied to by the government.

    Some things never change.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You completely ignored my central point about the British public being lied to by the government.

    Some things never change.

    I doubt any Govt, anywhere has ever told the whole truth, and the full story wasn't available here, but that doesn't detract from Scargills arms, and the tissue of lies he told throughout.

    He intended to take on Thatcher as soon as she came to power. The question was when. She knew that too, and was ready.

    Mining was never going to carry on as it was, and no one ever said those 20 pits were the only ones that would ever close. It was a dirty, dangerous, expensive industry, with a union that had it's head in the sand, and it had no place in modern Britain in that format, with those demands.

    Bu Autumn it was clear the strike had failed, and Scargill could have eased some of the misery, but he refused all attempts to settle.
  • TRIPSTRIPS Posts: 3,714
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Did I say Oct '83? It was Oct '84 when a resolution seemed to have been reached, and Scargill wouldn't entertain any discussion of it.
    The point still stands whether it's Oct 83 or Oct 84, how could the miners and government reach any agreement until the government admitted the miners justification for striking was true. the secret plans to close 75 pits.?
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    TRIPS wrote: »
    The point still stands whether it's Oct 83 or Oct 84, how could the miners and government reach any agreement until the government admitted the miners justification for striking was true. the secret plans to close 75 pits.?

    If the Government wanted to close down pits and you want to stop them, how does it help to stop working in those pits?
  • TRIPSTRIPS Posts: 3,714
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    If the Government wanted to close down pits and you want to stop them, how does it help to stop working in those pits?
    Well you could use that argument for any plant closure, factories or pits.
    Have to remember just how ruthless the Government was, changing laws. raiding the miners funds, using a massive police force, stock piling a years supply of coal. not to mention the dirty tricks campaign,
    It's ok to look back in hindsight but there were many factors that would have come into play had coal stocks ran out,
    Would the government had the support of the docks if they had tried to import coal, would the country have allowed troops on our streets. there are many scenarios that would have forced them back to the negotiating table.
  • nataliannatalian Posts: 4,295
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The miners strike is about the first news story that I can remember. I was far too young to understand anything about it but I do remember seeing it on the news and so I have something of a fascination with it.

    Regardless of whether the NUM leaders were politically motivated or not, the ordinary miners obviously believed (correctly as it turns out) that they were fighting for their livlihood and communities.

    Given what we know now about a government intent on breaking the NUM, meticulously planning for a strike, goading the NUM into calling a strike at a time of the government's choosing and then using the full force of the government to crush it and then destroying livlihoods and communities anyway, the whole story is a rather sad affair and does not reflect well on the government of the time.

    Does this mean that all government action against strikers is a bad thing - of course not. I have been somewhat taken aback by the sycophantic eulogisation of Bob Crow in recent days given that he recently set out to hold the capital to ransom to allegedly protect the jobs of his members when they were not even going to be any compulsory redundancies. A bit more government action there would have been a good thing.
  • redtuxredtux Posts: 1,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That's the thing, even now there are people who just seem unable to grasp the whole purpose of being in a union, the clue is in the name,
    Time and time again we see/hear some on the right bashing the unions,
    "not everyone voted" they will say, "if only 55% of the members voted and only 40% voted for industrial action, that means that 60% don't support industrial action so what right do they have to call a strike?"
    The same 'logic' doesn't seem to apply when it comes to the election of this government though,

    Then there are those who say I don't agree with the majority of my fellow union members, therefore I won't support them, but you can bet your backside that the moment I have a complaint or feel wrongly treated or have an accident at work I will immediately go running to the union and demand they help me, and of course, even though I refuse to support my fellow workers in their dispute because I am a selfish bas.... (Oops better be careful someone might report me, again) a selfish 'person' I will certainly take any pay rise etc that my fellow workers have struggled to get"

    If I live to be 100 years old I will never understand the type of disgusting mentality that can think that such behavior is excusable.

    The miners chanted, "the miners united will never be defeated" sadly they were stabbed in the back by scabs, had they been united they certainly wouldn't have been defeated.

    And Kinnock, the TUC and co
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    TRIPS wrote: »
    Well you could use that argument for any plant closure, factories or pits.
    Have to remember just how ruthless the Government was, changing laws. raiding the miners funds, using a massive police force, stock piling a years supply of coal. not to mention the dirty tricks campaign,
    It's ok to look back in hindsight but there were many factors that would have come into play had coal stocks ran out,
    Would the government had the support of the docks if they had tried to import coal, would the country have allowed troops on our streets. there are many scenarios that would have forced them back to the negotiating table.

    It was not a massive Police Force. The current Police service is bigger.
  • redtuxredtux Posts: 1,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bokonon wrote: »
    I have despaired of this message board before but I have to say this is the most despicable thing I have ever seen on here.

    I have no idea how you have earned your living over the years UncleLou but the miners did dirty, exhausting backbreaking work and it probably shortened all of their lives. Many others died doing the work. The only reason that Britain is a wealthy country today is because of decades of constant labour down mines. And around that work they built a sense of community and they didn't want to see that community destroyed. In other words they were the sort of people that the right claims to respect: hard working families with a sense of social responsibility hardly covers it.

    I remember the miners strike and there was a huge amount of support for the miners from people outside of mining communities. And looking back on it I do feel bitter about the way the Conservative government treated the miners: it is now beyond any doubt that they were planned and prepared to destroy those communities. But at this point I have to defend the Conservative right of the 1980s: absolutely nobody at the time said they 'hated' the miners. Feel free to contradict me if you have a shred of evidence for this. What they said was that there were structural changes which made it impossible to contine with coal mining. In a way I find myself defending the Thatcherites on this point but only to the extent that they didn't sink quite as low as you have managed with this post.

    Including oddly enough from Nottingham City
  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    I doubt any Govt, anywhere has ever told the whole truth, and the full story wasn't available here, but that doesn't detract from Scargills arms, and the tissue of lies he told throughout.

    He intended to take on Thatcher as soon as she came to power. The question was when. She knew that too, and was ready.

    Mining was never going to carry on as it was, and no one ever said those 20 pits were the only ones that would ever close. It was a dirty, dangerous, expensive industry, with a union that had it's head in the sand, and it had no place in modern Britain in that format, with those demands.

    Bu Autumn it was clear the strike had failed, and Scargill could have eased some of the misery, but he refused all attempts to settle.

    No, it was not a case of the government not telling the whole truth, but of deliberately lying about their fundamental plans to close many pits in order to mislead the British people.

    Because of this, the NUM were vilified as liars at the time by the Right wing press.

    History has since completely vindicated them.

    You are sticking to the old anti-union rhetoric of the day, seemingly.
  • redtuxredtux Posts: 1,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    It was sad because the miners suffered for nearly 12 months for nothing.



    I don't think they had a chance of winning without a national ballot. It destroyed the concept of solidarity.

    Within, a few months the miners had to picket pits instead of power stations. By the late Autumn the strike was lost but Scargill insisted on dragging it out for another 4/5 months for no good reason.

    Ah the myth of the National Ballot

    Thanks to Gormley, there was no such thing as a National Ballot.

    In a national ballot EVERY region had to vote yes, so even if 90% of miners had voted yes, it would have failed if Notts voted no
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TRIPS wrote: »
    The point still stands whether it's Oct 83 or Oct 84, how could the miners and government reach any agreement until the government admitted the miners justification for striking was true. the secret plans to close 75 pits.?

    More pits in the future would have closed anyway, as 100s had done before this strike. Times change, and the demands of the miners were never going to continue. Did you think 20 would close, then the rest would carry on for evermore, and pay rises would continue as they had? If 75 had closed straight away, the rest would not have continued to this day.

    An agreement, which was deemed reasonable by all, for that time was on the table, and Scargill alone refused to look at it.

    The miners who were on strike for a year needn't have suffered as they did, and after all that time off, it wasn't possible for mines to just carry on as though they'd been working the day before.

    Scargill screwed them all because of his personal power ambitions.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    redtux wrote: »
    Ah the myth of the National Ballot

    Thanks to Gormley, there was no such thing as a National Ballot.

    In a national ballot EVERY region had to vote yes, so even if 90% of miners had voted yes, it would have failed if Notts voted no

    At least Notts would have had a say. They didn't agree with Scargill, and plenty of others didn't either, but they daren't go against the union. Look how those that did were treated, and still are.
  • redtuxredtux Posts: 1,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I cant remember the details, but various people from all sides had agreed the offer was a good one, but Scargill wouldn't even discuss it. Kinnock was on, and confirmed it, and said that was the last straw for Labour support of him.

    Rubbish - the offer meaninglingless. The wording allowed McGregor to do whatever he wanted, and Scargill knew it
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No, it was not a case of the government not telling the whole truth, but of deliberately lying about their fundamental plans to close many pits in order to mislead the British people.

    Because of this, the NUM were vilified as liars at the time by the Right wing press.

    History has since completely vindicated them.

    You are sticking to the old anti-union rhetoric of the day, seemingly.

    And you are clinging to the old Wolfie Smith rhetoric.

    Both sides had their agendas, and Govts always have future plans they don't tell us about, but anyone can see mining was not going to last. Scargill spun more lies than anyone else, and refused any attempt at negotiation, because his broken pride wouldn't let him.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    redtux wrote: »
    Rubbish - the offer meaninglingless. The wording allowed McGregor to do whatever he wanted, and Scargill knew it

    Everyone else saw it as reasonable, only Scargill wouldn't consider it, and how did that work out for him?
  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    And you are clinging to the old Wolfie Smith rhetoric.

    Both sides had their agendas, and Govts always have future plans they don't tell us about, but anyone can see mining was not going to last. Scargill spun more lies than anyone else, and refused any attempt at negotiation, because his broken pride wouldn't let him.

    No I am not. I am pointing out to you in a restrained manner the fact of the lies emanating from the government and NCB, which you seem to incredibly sweep under the carpet and merely state that "Scargill spun more lies than anyone else".

    What lies?
  • TRIPSTRIPS Posts: 3,714
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    More pits in the future would have closed anyway, as 100s had done before this strike. Times change, and the demands of the miners were never going to continue. Did you think 20 would close, then the rest would carry on for evermore, and pay rises would continue as they had? If 75 had closed straight away, the rest would not have continued to this day.

    An agreement, which was deemed reasonable by all, for that time was on the table, and Scargill alone refused to look at it.

    The miners who were on strike for a year needn't have suffered as they did, and after all that time off, it wasn't possible for mines to just carry on as though they'd been working the day before.

    Scargill screwed them all because of his personal power ambitions.
    Your making your own arguments up here. too many to go into as it diverts from the main point, the reason for the strike.
    No agreement could have been made guaranteeing the 75 pits would not be closed as the government would not admit this was true, that's the point, it was a secret plan they refused to confirm it was the plan. the reason for the strike.
  • TRIPSTRIPS Posts: 3,714
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    It was not a massive Police Force. The current Police service is bigger.
    ?
    We are debating the miners strike. the massive police force obviously meant, Thatcher used a massive police force to police the miners strike.
Sign In or Register to comment.