Mr Prime Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Which only priced British coal even further out of the market place. The point is that without illegal subsidies British coal couldn't compete in a free market. The miners wages were being largely paid for out of other people's taxes. In the circumstances expecting large pay rises wasn't smart regardless of where they pay scale lined up with other industries. The worst thing about the whole episode is that subsidies to the mining industry simply increased costs to every other industry in the country, making them less competitive with overseas producers. It is probably a contributory factor to why many of our other industries found it was cheaper to move abroad. The subsidies existed around the world as has already been pointed out and industry moving from first world to slave economies is also an international problem. The idea of paying UK workers peanuts to work in those conditions was unthinkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 You have shown nothing. All you have done is pull meaningless statistics out of thin air in a vain hope that it will back up your preposterous claims. I have come to this late and only just read this one. This is where you lose credibility 'emma'. I actually find this funny. He has shown you some stats explaining the UK position compared to the UK's nearest counterparts and you brush them aside as 'meaningless'. Interesting. Considering these were the stats the NCB/HMG/NUM used at the time I find your interpretation strange. Just another boring rent a ranter and you started off sounding serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Clement Attlee came along in 1945 as the PM, and one of the earliest things that he did was the nationalization of the UK Mining industry. The Tories violently opposed this at first, but when Churchill came back to power he didn't reverse it. Even if he influenced Egypt and Iran to topple regimes along with Eisenhower to oppose the nationalization of British energy assets in these countries, he didn't reverse the nationalization of domestic industries. Then the subsequent Labor governments nationalized other industries, like telecom, British Steel, and British Petroleum. Margaret Thatcher emerged and preached the mantra of privatization, as did Ronald Reagan in the United States and Yasuhiro Nakasone in Japan. Neoliberalism was undeniably on full power since the 1980's in the advanced worlds, but even then it's also true that it caused untold damage to countries, such as Argentina where privatization was imposed upon by the US. (In Chile during the 1970's, the first democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende, nationalized all the mines. This threatened US-owned assets in the country, which encouraged the CIA to toppled him and replaced him with Augusto Pinochet, one of the most brutal dictators of South America. He, working together with the anti-Keynesian economists from the University of Chicago, embarked upon the privatization of the nation's resources so that US corporations can come in and buy off all the assets of Chile.) And my question concerns the mines. Neoliberals claim that the public mines of Britain were literally drying up the economy, while skeptics claim that privatization of the mining industry brought on greater inequality and worker rights were neglected. There's so much partisan opinion on this issue that, it's difficult to make a decision over it. How would you assess Thatcher's privatization of the mines, as well as her overall economic policy of her entire premiership? The NUM opposed it on the grounds that the owners were overcompensated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radomu Posted February 26, 2011 Author Share Posted February 26, 2011 The NUM opposed it on the grounds that the owners were overcompensated! The "NUM"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 The "NUM"? National Union of Mineworkers:banana: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 That isn't what history records. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8550787.stm The strike brought the NUM, led by its president Arthur Scargill, into conflict with Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government. Mr McKay is still strongly critical of the leadership of Mr Scargill, particularly his refusal to hold a national ballot for strike action. The rest is pretty damning as well. Of course there is also the court case brought by some miners against the NUM for NOT HOLDING A STRIKE BALLOT. Scargill himself was fined £1000 for his refusal to hold a ballot. It is a bit misleading to say he was at the centre of the dispute, as he was no longer in the NUM at the time. One thing you have to give Scargill Credit for is his respect for democracy, once the miners had made their decision he defended it, something Mr McKay obviously had some problem with, after all he supported Joe Gormley when he ignored National ballots and tried to have Scargill prosecuted on trumped up charges during the dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scabbydog Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 It is a bit misleading to say he was at the centre of the dispute, as he was no longer in the NUM at the time. That seems unlikely as he was a Branch Secretary in Wales at the time and is now on the board of directors of North Wales Miners Association Trust.... One thing you have to give Scargill Credit for is his respect for democracy, once the miners had made their decision he defended it, something Mr McKay obviously had some problem with, after all he supported Joe Gormley when he ignored National ballots and tried to have Scargill prosecuted on trumped up charges during the dispute. ....but on the other hand Scargill is no longer in the NUM as he was expelled from the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 That seems unlikely as he was a Branch Secretary in Wales at the time and is now on the board of directors of North Wales Miners Association Trust.... ....but on the other hand Scargill is no longer in the NUM as he was expelled from the union. No he was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scabbydog Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 No he was not. Oh yes he was http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/25/arthur-scargill-expelled-num-finances Arthur Scargill and allies 'expelled' from miners' union Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 The mines have been closed for nearly 30 years now. If there are still people hanging about in pit villages with no jobs waiting for the mines to re-open, it can hardly be blamed on the Tory government of the 80s. The villages were there because of the mines, not the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.