The Tory ministers of the 80's should be put on trial for the Ridley plan.

[Mr Prime]

If they did not want to strike, but preferred to work for a living, why are they traitors. Can't you see that not everybody wanted their own lives to be controlled by a militant left wing union?

You seem to condone violence against honest working men.

 

Not the brightest then, are they?

 

If there are a thousand men at a pit and 5 want to go in against the will of the 995 who has right on their side? You forget it was a trade union and people were supposed to abide by the majority. Before you bleat ballot many pits had their own individual ballots and there were area ballots too. Besides anything the majority nationwide were out, no ifs or buts.

 

I don't like violence in any form but if a handful of men want to defy the will of the thousands then what should they/you expect? This was not a tiddlywinks championship!

 

They were considerably brighter than the scabs because they could see what was coming. The dimwitted scabs believed their jobs would be safe if they behaved nicely. Who was right?

[sccsux]

You do like to get personal don't you?

 

Seems he's not the only one quick to let fly with the insults:

 

The middle aged man full of certainty is upset that a whippersnapper with far more than his o level in woodwork is telling him how it actually is.

[mort]

If the insults and sniping continue then the thread will be closed and further action may be taken.

[Wildcat]

I claim Scargill was intent on setting up an ultra left government in the UK.

The miners were just poor sods used in his attempt to overthrow an elected government in pursuit of that goal.

 

I mentioned the East German situation because our learned prof has not given the slightest thought to the bully factor. profs tend to think logically. The rest of the world tends not to so fine theories based on reading books designed to make cash for the author are not much real use.

 

Scargill did have his rabid dogs out there intimidating people.

If not, would you be kind enough to explain why returning miners felt the need to hide in car boots to get to work?

 

The answer to your question was explained in the post you were quoting.

 

Here it is again:

 

If you are observing that at the end of the miner's strike there were strong feelings and animosity between groups of workers, then what you are saying is obvious. It does however have nothing to do with the claim you originally made.

 

Are you really suggesting Scargill had set up a Stasi like secret police force? The only Stasi like activity going on was the involvement of MI6 and the army.

 

For the sake of transparency, I will go on to say it is obvious because the differences of opinion and stamina for the dispute were different in different people. The stakes were high and emotions similarly were bound to be high. Such is human nature.

 

You may well have drunk with miners during the dispute and learnt that the tabloids and left wing papers only told partial truths, points I wouldn't hesitate to disagree with.

 

But may I ask how your proposed argument is supposed to work?

 

Your argument seems to go.... returning miners hiding in car boots to get to work, is evidence that Scargill was intending to set up an ultra left government in the UK.

 

There seem to be a few steps missing before the argument can said to support or even relate to the conclusion.

 

I admit you have creatively deployed some personal attacks and made a lot of having drunk with miners.

 

But contrasting your argument with what you were arguing against:

 

I have heard this theory put around for years. Can you explain in some detail please how if the miners had won the strike that Britain would have turned into a communist dictatorship?

 

They won two strikes in 72 and 74 and this did not happen. They 'overthrew' the government in 74. In reality Heath went to the country and lost a democratic election, no red guards at Buckingham Palace. Had the miners won in 84 then Thatcher may have been knifed by her own side or the government may have gone to the country again. That does not equal a communist dictatorship.

 

Let's get some facts sorted, not hazy outdated tabloid hysteria and impressions but plain facts. I have spent thousands of hours studying the strike as it was the subject of my masters dissertation so I only say what I know can be checked.

 

1. & 4. A member of the Communist party who left in his twenties because the party stifled initiative. Secondly the broad left including communists supported him in his rise. However if you knew what you were talking about you will also know the communist party did not support the strike and encouraged him to call it off. By the 50's the party was no longer revolutionary, believed in parliament and had a habit of telling younger members to cut their hair and put on a tie. "payback" therefore has no meaning and is just judging others by your own cynical standards.

 

2. Scargill was elected with a massive 70% vote in a secret ballot. Between his election and the strike there were three national votes on whether to take strike action. All narrowly voted no and so there was no strike. In 81 there were wildcat strikes starting in Wales that spread out and Scargill told them all to get back to work. Not many people know that because it doesn't suit the agenda of him being strike happy.

 

3. Violence. Scargill condemned "all violence that takes place away from the picket line". Ah but that leaves violence on the picket line? So what? While thousands of pickets around the country sometimes directed violence against scabs Scargill was attending negotiations. Anyone who understands human nature will not be surprised that the pro strike majority sometimes wanted to assault traitors. Everyone hates traitors and of course violence by the police and scabs was perfectly acceptable of course.

 

5 & 7. Repressive states. If you knew all the facts you would know he had frequent arguments with representatives of communist states. He famously returned from a trip to Bulgaria telling the UK press "if that's communism they can bloody well keep it". Easily checkable if you scratch below the surface. His comment to Khruschev was a criticism of airbrushing history. He went on to say "it would be like us pretending Churchill never existed". However the full meaning of that exchange does not suit your selective agenda.

 

6. Where did Scargill ever say he wanted to bring down the government? He did say in various interviews that he wanted an end to capitalism and was its enemy. I have read probably every or almost every interview with the man and the closest he came to this was "if capitalism fails then we take over" in New Left Review and "we can roll back the years of Thatcherism". Others on the left often criticised him for not having a grand plan for bringing down the government. The most he wanted was to see Thatcher fall in humiliation but since her Majesty's opposition try and do that every day to the government there is nothing wrong with this unless he was talking about armed revolt. He wasn't, unless you can source some evidence that he was? You won't be able to I guarantee it.

 

8. He celebrates the 1917 revolution? You'll be telling us the Tsar was misunderstood next.

 

9. Oh my God a Marxist! So what? He's entitled to his opinions and 150,000 men voted him into power based on his opinions. How many would vote for you?

 

10. He used the words socialism and commented on the eastern bloc being far too repressive as already mentioned. There is no evidence that he wanted governments removed by force.

 

11. The SLP was a big mistake. Had he stood in a rock solid former mining seat he may have got into parliament, instead he foolishly went to Hartlepool and Newport.

 

12. Quasi revolutionary is not the same as revolutionary. e.g. he was confirming my point that in mobilising the workers to determine their own lives they were acting in a revolutionary manner. However this does not translate into a pre planned revolution unless you can find evidence of a planned march on parliament and seizure of the BBC, Scotland Yard and MI5 HQ?

 

Finally he did not start the strike, ordinary miners at Cortonwood did when they realised the government was dropping agreements without consultation and that Scargill had been right for the previous 3 years. Any Sheffielder around at the time will tell you masses of miners marched on the Sheffield HQ to demand the wildcat strike be declared official. The leadership agreed. Scargill as president did not even use his vote as it was not required. The BBC bulletin of the day got it right when it said "union tells miners we'll support you but there will be no ballot".

 

May I ask, do you really think your argument based on the travel arrangements of those returning to work is in the slightest bit convincing?

[Wildcat]

Seems he's not the only one quick to let fly with the insults:

 

We can all be guilty of responding in kind under repeated provocation.

[Tony]

We can all be guilty of responding in kind under repeated provocation.

 

Does that include coppers and strike breakers?

[Wildcat]

Does that include coppers and strike breakers?

 

What makes you think my "all" wouldn't?

 

If I had wanted to refer to everyone except "coppers and strike breakers" I wouldn't have said "all" would I?

[Tony]

That's a yes then?

[Wildcat]

That's a yes then?

 

If you can only manage answers of one syllable, it hardly seems worthwhile discussing anything with you.

[Tony]

It would just be nice to hear it. I'll do it for you in words of more than one syllable.

Yes, coppers and strike breakers can be guilty of responding in kind under repeated provocation

I do hope that you don't consider that to be repeated provocation.

 

 

 

 

What does repeated provocation achieve?