Perhaps you ought to be asking "What kind of common ownership would be best?" The answer is not privatisation, though.
Was Nationalising coal Labour's biggest ever mistake?
- Thread starter comstock
- Start date
sevenstars
citizen army
newbie said:
Eh? How could it be a struggle that neither side could win, if, er, capital won?
You dont deny that capitalism cant deliver major economic reforms, and that the electoral mandates of governments are thus overuled by unelected financial institutions. If thats not an argument against capitalism, what is?
sevenstars
citizen army
newbie said:
Ah, your posting this stuff here for a laugh! I get it now
Steve Booth
Bourgeois apologist
I think the nationalisation of the mines by the post war Attlee government was the right thing to do.
The closure of most of the mines in the 1980s and in 1992/93 was completely evil. I think it was done for revenge, because the miners were the flagship union of the Labour movement. With oil at something like $70 /barrel people are now learning how dependency on oil (which started after WW1) is a really bad idea.
I don't think it is right to blame the unions for the defeat of the James Callaghan government in 1979. Even more so it is wrong to blame the NUM for what happened afterwards.
Perhaps the mistake Labour made (and the roots of this probably started in the late 1940s when Manny Shinwell was in charge, I seem to remember him expressing regret about this some time in the 1970s, somewhere I still have the press cutting but couldn't find it quickly) was that the nationalised coal industry was not properly put under the control of the mine workers themselves.
This is one of the things about governments (and bureaucrats) they rule it from a remote place and make bad decisions, they have different interests at heart. If the mine workers had been put in charge of it, they would probably have made a better go of it than the way it turned out.
I don't see why the coal mines couldn't have been modernised. There is still plenty of coal down there. I think in the old days of the NCB they used to say there was 250 years worth there. There is also a similar quantity offshore, underneath the North Sea and other places.
If we are talking about making the mines more efficient and eliminating pneumaconiosis and other diseases, what is to stop robot machines digging it out? There would still be plenty of jobs for people, but the worst aspects of the danger perhaps could be eliminated.
The closure of most of the mines in the 1980s and in 1992/93 was completely evil. I think it was done for revenge, because the miners were the flagship union of the Labour movement. With oil at something like $70 /barrel people are now learning how dependency on oil (which started after WW1) is a really bad idea.
I don't think it is right to blame the unions for the defeat of the James Callaghan government in 1979. Even more so it is wrong to blame the NUM for what happened afterwards.
Perhaps the mistake Labour made (and the roots of this probably started in the late 1940s when Manny Shinwell was in charge, I seem to remember him expressing regret about this some time in the 1970s, somewhere I still have the press cutting but couldn't find it quickly) was that the nationalised coal industry was not properly put under the control of the mine workers themselves.
This is one of the things about governments (and bureaucrats) they rule it from a remote place and make bad decisions, they have different interests at heart. If the mine workers had been put in charge of it, they would probably have made a better go of it than the way it turned out.
I don't see why the coal mines couldn't have been modernised. There is still plenty of coal down there. I think in the old days of the NCB they used to say there was 250 years worth there. There is also a similar quantity offshore, underneath the North Sea and other places.
If we are talking about making the mines more efficient and eliminating pneumaconiosis and other diseases, what is to stop robot machines digging it out? There would still be plenty of jobs for people, but the worst aspects of the danger perhaps could be eliminated.
As oil prices increase, I think coal-mining will make quite a big come-back.
As others have said, there is plenty of coal left there.
As the cost of oil energy rises, suddenly pits that were not "economic" will suddenly become so again.
It's always like this with mining, and indeed other industries. When the price of the commodity being mined or made goes up, things that weren't worth doing will become so.
Will any new mines be nationalised, run by one big private company (like British Coal) or lots of small firms?
We shall see.
Giles..
As others have said, there is plenty of coal left there.
As the cost of oil energy rises, suddenly pits that were not "economic" will suddenly become so again.
It's always like this with mining, and indeed other industries. When the price of the commodity being mined or made goes up, things that weren't worth doing will become so.
Will any new mines be nationalised, run by one big private company (like British Coal) or lots of small firms?
We shall see.
Giles..
Giles said:
The mass closure of the mines had NOTHING to do with them being "economic" or not. OK, he is partisan, but Arthur Scargill once said that if the coal industry had received the subsidy of the nuclear industry they could delivery sacks of coal to houses with a £20 note attached to each one. And back then £20 was worth something.
newbie
undisambiguated
bad wording on my part: the industrial strife was a battle between management (government) and unions. Neither side could win, and neither was strong enough to withstand the forces of international capitalism.sevenstars said:
I do deny that capitalism can't deliver major economic reforms, actually. That's precise what the Thatcher/Blair project has done. I don't much like a lot of what's happened, but denying that it's happened really doesn't get us very far.
The unaccountable power wielded by the corporations and the institutions is a major argument against capitalism, of course.
Fast forward to 2005. The nation is now dependent on gas. For the next two winters there will be greater demand than supply and, on really cold days, the government will have the unenviable task of deciding which bits of infrastructure to shutdown (manufacturing, hospitals, domestic supply, etc.)
Now - question. Hands up who wants to nationalise the gas supply and place it in the principled care of the Unions? Can anyone guess what the first move would be, and how copious the flow of crocodile tears of "sincere regret" at the distress caused by holding the nation up to ransom again?
Yes nationalising coal was a mistake - but it was the mistake of following an ideology that takes no account of the realities of human nature.
Now - question. Hands up who wants to nationalise the gas supply and place it in the principled care of the Unions? Can anyone guess what the first move would be, and how copious the flow of crocodile tears of "sincere regret" at the distress caused by holding the nation up to ransom again?
Yes nationalising coal was a mistake - but it was the mistake of following an ideology that takes no account of the realities of human nature.
But how does that apply to the British coal industry In a fairly straightforward fashion. Gas and coal are sources of energy, which is essential to society and therefore attractive levers for the unscrupulous in pursuit of self interest. Unlike coal, gas has lower inventory therefore the effects of unscrupulous behaviour can be more quickly perceived. Just as we would not want the Unions controlling the availability of gas today, we did not want them controlling the availability of coal then. So the Labour government was wrong to nationalise coal and transfer power to them.
However, as a more expensive source of energy and one which gives rise to higher greenhouse emissions per unit energy, its ultimate demise was beneficial. So from that perspective, Labour was right, albeit in the same way that an own goal is right to the opposite side.
However, as a more expensive source of energy and one which gives rise to higher greenhouse emissions per unit energy, its ultimate demise was beneficial. So from that perspective, Labour was right, albeit in the same way that an own goal is right to the opposite side.
Exactly. Which is why the utilities (at least) should be controlled by the community, not by a very small part of it intent only on profit.Rich Lyon said:
What difference, if the unions were hellbent on control, would ownership make? The key workers in a monopoly industry have power to shut it down, nationalised or not. And as for holding the country to ransom - have you seen the size of gas bills?
not by a very small part of it intent only on profit - you mean, like the Union? Being controlled by the community (which benefits if the utility does not get interrupted), and being controlled by the Union (which benefits if it does) are, of course, two different things.
What difference ... would ownership make? The strength of the defense that would be mounted.
The gas price, like the oil price, is being set by the market. Just as it is when it falls.
What difference ... would ownership make? The strength of the defense that would be mounted.
The gas price, like the oil price, is being set by the market. Just as it is when it falls.
Can we get clear before we procede - do you see profit as a good or bad thing. Or good when pursued by a multinational and bad when pursued by a union?Rich Lyon said:
In what sense are the utilities now "controlled by the community?
Exactly. And the purpose of the market is to maximise profit, NOT provide for the community. No matter what your capitalist games, it's still the same gas in the same pipelines with the same workers running it.
Rich Lyon said:
Right, but the supposed "unscrupulous pursuit of self-interest" in the case of the miners produced the best coal industry in the industrialised world. So why is it worse than the unscrupulous pursuit of self-interest by a private company.
Sorry, in what way did 'nationalisation' transfer power over coal supplies to the unions? The government controlled coal supplies through the NCB.
A strike is the product of a disagreement between management and the workforce. If the workforce controlled the coal industry, why would they ever need to go on strike? Couldn't they just award themselves pay rises?
HarrisonSlade
say NO to the vaccine
Maggie won in 1979 because of Denis Healey's refusal to give workers in the public sector a fair wage increase. The Winter of Discontent happened, not because the UNIONS were getting too up themselves, but for the basic fact that people like to get paid for the job they are doing.comstock said:C'mon!!!Maggie won in 79 because the unions brought Britian to it's knees.
Then the pendulum went too far the other way
do you see profit as a good or bad thing
I see maintaining the supply of energy as a good thing. I've seen workers threaten that supply for their own ends. I've never seen a company do so.
Sorry, in what way did 'nationalisation' transfer power over coal supplies to the unions?
Sorry, what was the purpose of Nationalising coal supplies?
I see maintaining the supply of energy as a good thing. I've seen workers threaten that supply for their own ends. I've never seen a company do so.
Sorry, in what way did 'nationalisation' transfer power over coal supplies to the unions?
Sorry, what was the purpose of Nationalising coal supplies?
Rich Lyon said:
How about the massive power cuts that afflicted the states a short while ago? (as one example) Directly attributable to privatisation and de-regulation, with the power companies neglecting to maintain an appropriate excess of power supply.
To turn the running of the coal supplies over to the government.
You didn't answer my other point. If unions pursuing self-interests is so terrible, then why was the British coal industry arguably the best in the world?
Don't pay your fuel bill. See what happens.Rich Lyon said:
Train companies deprive people of transport. Drugs companies deprive people of medicine. The bottom line is the dollar, you don't really think the owners of the utilities are doing it out of social conscience, do you?
newbie
undisambiguated
reallyoldhippy said:
Indeed, I agree.
The trouble is, there is a huge question about how 'the community' get to participate in exercising that control, and how it distinguishes the legitimate needs of the workforce from unreasonable demands.
Whether or not you think it fair, a lot of people in the 70s thought that union members were "intent only on profit" (aka taking the piss, or holding the country to ransom), and that led to resentment in 'the community', where consumers outnumber those with their hands on the levers of production, yet they had no voice.
Towards the end it became unclear whether the nationalised industries were being run in the interests of 'the community' as a whole, or merely in the interests of those who worked in them. And as 'the community' was poorly represented in any negotiations, if at all, it's hardly surprising that they weren't prepared to support the nationalised industries at the ballot box.
How about the massive power cuts that afflicted the states a short while ago?
And the transferrability of that observation to the UK situation is what, precisely? The UK's situation is a temprorary lack of import capacity. The US's situation is massive underinvestment in distribution infrastructure. Can you provide evidence of the UK's companies doing the same? Am I arguing the British instance, or all instances?
To turn the running of the coal supplies over to the government
And the attitude of the government at the time to private vs. workers interests was ...
why was the British coal industry arguably the best in the world?
Arguably being the point at which it deliberately shut itself down and forced the entire country into prolonged crisis, you mean?
Don't pay your fuel bill. See what happens.
You understand, don't you, that there is a fundamental difference between accepting a service and refusing to pay for it, and preventing others from accepting a service even if they want to pay for it?
Train companies deprive people of transport. Drugs companies deprive people of medicine.
i.e. not everyone who could be provided with service (a) is provided, therefore service provider (a) is withholding that service?
Poor argument, I'm afraid.
And the transferrability of that observation to the UK situation is what, precisely? The UK's situation is a temprorary lack of import capacity. The US's situation is massive underinvestment in distribution infrastructure. Can you provide evidence of the UK's companies doing the same? Am I arguing the British instance, or all instances?
To turn the running of the coal supplies over to the government
And the attitude of the government at the time to private vs. workers interests was ...
why was the British coal industry arguably the best in the world?
Arguably being the point at which it deliberately shut itself down and forced the entire country into prolonged crisis, you mean?
Don't pay your fuel bill. See what happens.
You understand, don't you, that there is a fundamental difference between accepting a service and refusing to pay for it, and preventing others from accepting a service even if they want to pay for it?
Train companies deprive people of transport. Drugs companies deprive people of medicine.
i.e. not everyone who could be provided with service (a) is provided, therefore service provider (a) is withholding that service?
Poor argument, I'm afraid.
sevenstars
citizen army
newbie said:
newbie said:
newbie
undisambiguated
sevenstars said:
Are you going to try and tell me that it was the rich and powerful that voted Thatcher (or Blair) into power and kept her there against the opposition of the entire working class?
I don't know if you were politically active in the 70s- there was a lot of activism at the time- but if you were you might remember the almost total lack of belief in the Labour government, the lack of faith in the unions as being representative of their members, and the despair at the failure of the existing social democratic model to work for the majority of people. The 1979 election was a massive missed opportunity, because the w/c swung behind Thatcher (yes, and into the arms of the rich & powerful) not because they wanted everything she stood for, but because there was nothing else on offer and they were sick of what no longer made sense.
I repeat: are you trying to make out that the 70s was some sort of golden age?
Do we? As I look around me I see a working class considerably better off, in assets, choices and quality of life, than I did in 1979.
I don't see redistribution of wealth in anything like a classical leftist sense, but neither do I see that classical vision of the working class: with little or no room for individuality or personal control in their job, their housing, their healthcare (see the private thread in general), their education and so on. I'm prepared to bet that few would trade places with what they had in 1979, because they believe the reforms that have occured have made their lives better.
What do you see?
Rich Lyon said:
Your claim was that private companies were better for controlling energy resources because they unsure continuity of supply. I provided an example where one did not.
Eh? If the unions controlled the coal industry, why did they have to strike? What was the conflict about?
How many national coal strikes were there over the course of nearly 50 years of nationalised coal? 4? Excluding the 84/85 strike (which was deliberately provoked by the government, as they would readily admit), how many days total disuption to supply?
In the meantime union power contributed to making the coal industry safer and more efficient that any comparable national coal industry.
sevenstars
citizen army
newbie said:
I'm trying to tell you that Thatcher/Blairism is a victory for the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.
Thatcher won in 1979 mainly because Labour had sold out its electorate. Those who control the media used cliched rubbish to blame the unions (rather than the IMF) for this and sold consumersim as the only option left. People who cant see a better world might find some consolation in this, people who benefit from it or who are paid ideologues might try justification of it. Which one are you?
What you see depends on where you stand and what you are looking at.
Of course general standards of living have grown in the last 25 years: this govt site shows though that wealth inequalties which reduced in the 1970's came back with a bang in the 1980's.
That would suggest that well off types are rather pleased with the status quo meanwhile children are still growing up in poverty in the 4th richest country in the world, with a Labour Government, what a disgrace
www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/FOSI_summary_article.pdf
Similar threads
- Poll
