Was Nationalising coal Labour's biggest ever mistake?

[newbie]

Of course it's a disgrace. Of course, also, the income and asset inequalities point to a society in which a few are benefitting greatly while many aren't. That isn't right, of course not. Neither is it simple.

The linked paper didn't discuss postcode inequality, which is a shame, because there's a lot of work necessary. Life chances are said to depend on postcode, a view reinforced by the extraordinary disparity between incomes and assets of those in London/Southeast and other parts of the country, particularly the ex-heavy industrial areas which had a substantially greater share in the 70s. Although there's been a general uplift of living standards, this has been very uneven, with deprivation zoned into specific postcodes, which those of us who live outside those areas simply don't see.

Even allowing for all that, a glance at fig 2 in your link shows that the median household disposable income (RPI adjusted) has risen by over 50% in the period. The lowest 10% have nearly doubled their purchasing power. I repeat my assertion that few would choose to return to the 70s.

Thatcher won in 1979 mainly because Labour had sold out its electorate.

I think it's reasonable to ask if you participated in the 1979 election, if you're going to make blanket statements like this.

 

[Rich Lyon]

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.

My claim was no such thing. My claim was that in this particular instance it was. You generalised it to all particular instances, selected an instance of failure from that general set, and attempted to show the failure of all from the failure of one. Pretty ordinary stuff.

If the unions controlled the coal industry, why did they have to strike? What was the conflict about?

What it was about when the car workers went on strike after one of their members was sacked for clocking on pantom workers and collecting their pay, and for bringing a mattress to work and sleeping during night shift. When the grave diggers left the corpses to rot. When the rubbish collectors gifted us the pleasure of rat infested streets. Greed, self interest, seven days worth of pay for three days worth of substandard work, etc. WHATEVER CAN BE GOT AWAY WITH BY THE UNPRINCIPLED IN SERVICE OF SELF INTEREST.

How many national coal strikes were there over the course of nearly 50 years of nationalised coal?

If I am pointing a gun at you, is the observation that I have seldom fired it evidence that I have, in fact, no power over you? When pointing a gun at you in a situation where I want you to continue to survive to serve my purpose, is firing it many times more or less effective than firing it a few times?

Excluding the 84/85 strike ... more efficient that any comparable national coal industry etc.

Well, how about we don't exclude the inconvenient bits, and don't avoid comparing other coal industries that outperformed ours?

 

[Sorry.]

My claim was no such 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."

Scotch mist?

bla bla bla held us to ransom

Even if your rant was even slightly representative of the truth of trade unionism in the 1970s, you've still not addressed my point. If unions "controlled" these industries, there wouldn't be anyone to demand things from, there would be no grievances to exercise.

WHATEVER CAN BE GOT AWAY WITH BY THE UNPRINCIPLED IN SERVICE OF SELF INTEREST.

Better to serve the self-interest of the entire workforce and their dependents, than serving the self-interests of private companies, investment banks and rich individuals.

If I am pointing a gun at you, is the observation that I have seldom fired it evidence that I have, in fact, no power over you? When pointing a gun at you in a situation where I want you to continue to survive to serve my purpose, is firing it many times more or less effective than firing it a few times?

Jesus you're thick. You claimed that strikes (ie.disruption of supply) were the reason the coal industry was shit, so I put the number of actual stoppages in perspective.

Well, how about we don't exclude the inconvenient bits, and don't avoid comparing other coal industries that outperformed ours?

How is the 84/85 strike the fault of the unions? It was deliberately provoked by the government!

And if you're happy comparing any UK industry with equivalents in third world countries, with fatality rates in the 100s, or in some cases the 1000s, then this discussion is utterly pointless. Sure they're cheaper, but at what cost?

 

[sevenstars]

Even allowing for all that, a glance at fig 2 in your link shows that the median household disposable income (RPI adjusted) has risen by over 50% in the period. The lowest 10% have nearly doubled their purchasing power. I repeat my assertion that few would choose to return to the 70s.

I think it's reasonable to ask if you participated in the 1979 election, if you're going to make blanket statements like this.[/

QUOTE]

Who is arguing for a return to the 1970's, and how do they intend to get us there?

I noted before that general living standards have risen since the 1970's, in the 1970's they had also risen since the 1950's, which had risen since the 1930's....indeed wasn't the Tories slogan then 'Youve never had it so good'?

To which the Left reply was 'You've always had it better!'

My point is, as the govts own statistics admit, is that inequality has increased at a shocking rate under Thatcher/Blair. Even the statistic you highlight above shows that, though you could also have noted that the wealth of the richest 10% grew 5 times more than that of the poorest 10% during the 1980's and the gap continues to grow under New Labour.

As to your question, you still havent answered mine. Are you paid to argue New Labour's case; are you one of the wealthy few; or did you experience the sell outs of seventies Labour and really believe there is 'no alternative' to what we have now?

Whatever, what you get from posting here beats me

 

[newbie]

of course there's an alternative to what we have now. I'd like to seek it out.

But I don't see that happening unless we understand what people like about now, and what they dislike. Part of that requires an honest assessment of what was wrong with 1970s Labour style social democracy- blaming the IMF or claiming that a few politicians sold out the electorate misses the point by a mile, IMO.

Ask yourself why the youth of the mid-seventies had the explosion of angry creativity that was punk and why the youth of today plays computer games and consumes sportswear with the name of a bank across the front. That will give you a better hint about how society of the day was seen than any amount of reading leftist histories will.

Similarly pretending that everything Thatcher did was forced through by the rich and powerful against the will and the interests of a united working class is patently absurd. Yet any thread here about the period is so swamped in vitriol that no learning is possible.

Unless it honestly seeks to understand the politics of modern consumer capitalism, which includes understanding choice, the left is marginalised and irrelevent.

though you could also have noted that the wealth of the richest 10% grew 5 times more than that of the poorest 10% during the 1980's and the gap continues to grow under New Labour.

Of course I could, so can you. But there's zero point having a conversation if we both say things we both know to be true.

what you get from posting here beats me

I try to post things others aren't saying, and what I'm looking for is people to say things that I haven't thought of. If you really think that every post should be a diatribe against capitalism you're seeking a very monotonous conversation.

We agree that capitalism does not and cannot meet the needs of all of the people. If you think that proposing some form of nationalisation is the way forward for the left then say so and deal with the points I've been making. And address how you get there from the starting point that almost no-one else in current society agrees with you. If that's not your position then let's hear your criticism of the collapse of the nationalisation project in the hope that we can learn from it and move on towards an idea of some alternative better than both then and now. But please don't just blame it all on bankers and the IMF.

 

[Rich Lyon]

Better to serve the self-interest of the entire workforce and their dependents, than serving the self-interests of private companies, investment banks and rich individuals.

Better still, I think, to serve the interests of those who are neither the workforce nor the private companies and rich individuals i.e. the other 80% of society who are just ordinary folk that want their coal delivered.

If unions "controlled" these industries, there wouldn't be anyone to demand things from

Are you perhaps confusing "controlled" with "replaced"? The control is manifested by their demands, made under threat of strike action, being met by the owners. In having their demand met, they can be described as being "in control". There would only be no-one to demand things from in the different case of the owners being replaced by the workers. This has only happened, to my certain knowledge, in the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and other successful and attractive economies and societies of that ilk.

Jesus you're thick.

I'm sorry you said that. I think that the point that the number of strikes is not a reliable indicator of the trustworthieness of the striker is a sound one and can only assume you haven't understood it.

Regrettably, if you are unable to remain civil, then there is little scope for further debate.

 

[sevenstars]

We agree that capitalism does not and cannot meet the needs of all of the people..[/QUOTE

]

Well its good we agree about that, you nearly had me there!

Some of your other points... The IMF's role in defining what elected govts can and cant do with their electoral mandates is a scandal - all the more so when we have cliched rubbish about blaming the unions propagated as the dominant historical memory of the time.

Forums like this are surely a space for the alternative views that the mainstream excludes, marginalises or 'forgets'. Personally I'm only inclined towards diatribes against capitalism when I'm presented with diatribes in favour of capitalism.

I've havn't argued that Thatcher came to power against a united working class.

My view is that reforms under capitalism -like nationalised industries, free university education and the welfare state- were not socialism in themselves but gains won by the working class at a time when capitalists could also be persuaded of their use and affordability. But if the capitalist class remains in power these reforms will at some point be taken back from us.

By 1979 they had decided that the post-war consensus was over and so the social democracy based on it was effectively finished. This left the labour movement disoriented, divided and dissillusioned.

Although the labour movement was much bigger then no significant force on the left was presenting an alternative strategy to the point of confronting and overthrowing the instituions which deny democratic mandates when they challenge the vested interests of the ruling class.

So what were people left with in the face of resurgent reaction?

Consumerism is about escapism, it was/is the consoling religion of defeat. There were no Tories where I come from, except a handful of Unionist pensioners, but solid labour people in my family and the community bought their council houses and shares in privatised industries, especially after the miners strike. In places without mass unemployment and a strong labour identity to counter the Tory media its no surpise the Tories got votes.

The expression 'if you cant beat em join them' was said a lot then, like 'looking after number 1' it fits rather well with 'there is no alternative'.

People like choice though, whats the problem with that? I tend to think the current system resricts the life choices we could make with the economic potential that we have.

I agree we are still very far from presenting such an alternative, but cynicism isnt going to help us. I'm in favour of some sort of broad left anti-capitalist re-alignment myself to begin with this task, what about you?

 

[cats hammers]

When the grave diggers left the corpses to rot.

Except this didn't happen, did it?

 

[newbie]

Well its good we agree about that, you nearly had me there!

Some of your other points... The IMF's role in defining what elected govts can and cant do with their electoral mandates is a scandal - all the more so when we have cliched rubbish about blaming the unions propagated as the dominant historical memory of the time.

ok, two points here.

Firstly, one of the "the dominant historical memory of the time" was industrial strife. Either you lived through it, and remember it night after night for the decade or more leading up to that winter, or you didn't in which case it's dead easy to dismiss. That's not me blaming 'the unions', bogeymen all, it's an honest appraisal of the time.

I said miles back in this thread something about the whole nationalisation project grinding to a halt because it no longer made sense. Union militancy was part of that, so was incompetent management, poor government & IMF intransigence, but the most important part was that island industrial production (buffered by ready markets across the remnants of empire) was no longer viable in a globalising world economy.

Those of us that didn't work in the car industry were handing over a chunk of our income, as tax, to prop up a car industry that was making cars that we didn't want, because we could buy cheaper and better from abroad. No amount of borrowing from the IMF was going to change that. Nor would any amount of restructuring, of ending restrictive practices and demarcation disputes (phrases you'll find unfamiliar unless you remember those days) or even consensus social contract.

Protectionism might, I suppose, have held American technology, Japanese engineering, Polish coal or why at bay for a while but, history suggests, not for long.

The nationalisation project fell to pieces.

Secondly, electoral mandates depend on electoral promises. A party that promises to build a swimming pool for every inhabitant might get elected, but there's no way they can deliver, whether they borrow the money from the IMF or not. Even if they confiscated every penny from people who already have swimming pools, they won't be able to afford to supply the water or heating to everyone, nor to satisfy the demands at the next election for a roof for every swimming pool.

That's not a song in praise of capitalism, it's a grim reflection of what happens. You, or I, can wish it wasn't so, but that doesn't actually alter the history.

At this point in the conversation it's commonplace to say there should have been some sort of revolution, which you're entitled to do, and which I was demanding at the time.

Forums like this are surely a space for the alternative views that the mainstream excludes, marginalises or 'forgets'.

Of course, but occasionally it's worth grounding and wondering how come a few people on a forum can see blindingly obvious truth that millions of (equally smart) people across the world can't see. Is it only malevolent self-interest on their part, or is it possible that these alternative views have been critically examined and found wanting?

My view is that reforms under capitalism -like nationalised industries, free university education and the welfare state- were not socialism in themselves but gains won by the working class at a time when capitalists could also be persuaded of their use and affordability. But if the capitalist class remains in power these reforms will at some point be taken back from us.

General agreement but I'm doubtful about the last point. The working class are, after all, becoming the 'capitalist class' not only through pension and insurance funds, but increasingly through mortgages and share ownership. Modern consumer capitalism is a complex web, which is evolving. Whether the current welfare state model will sustain isn't only up to them there capitalists, it's also up to us and what we want. See this thread in general to appreciate that the demands of society are changing and we're expecting[/] the private sector to perform better than the welfare state. The welfare state, at least as it is now, will only retain support if it fulfills our needs.

The nature of 'choice' is the political issue of the moment, but there is a reluctance on the left to address it. Both health and education are still centrally planned: it's looking doubtful to me that that will last (and that's not me demanding free market solutions, it's me starting to despair).

People like choice though, whats the problem with that? I tend to think the current system resricts the life choices we could make with the economic potential that we have.

No problem, except that choice implies plurality of supply, and socialism, or communism, is about supply based on need, probably with central planning. It's hard to discuss this somewhat basic contradiction without being accused of being a free market evangelist.

I agree we are still very far from presenting such an alternative, but cynicism isnt going to help us. I'm in favour of some sort of broad left anti-capitalist re-alignment myself to begin with this task, what about you?

I can't help cynicism. It's based on too long being part of the dissident left and 3+ years of reading the debates here

'Broad left' used to be code for the CP, I think. OK, I'll buy a paper next time I see one.

 

[Sorry.]

Better still, I think, to serve the interests of those who are neither the workforce nor the private companies and rich individuals i.e. the other 80% of society who are just ordinary folk that want their coal delivered.

Better to have it controlled by neither then, perhaps by the government?

Are you perhaps confusing "controlled" with "replaced"? The control is manifested by their demands, made under threat of strike action, being met by the owners. In having their demand met, they can be described as being "in control".

Oh come on, you're just trotting out lazy, ill-thought out Thatcherite rubbish. The unions didn't control the coal industry, the workers used their unions to improve conditions in a dangerous line of work. Nothing more.

I'm sorry you said that. I think that the point that the number of strikes is not a reliable indicator of the trustworthieness of the striker is a sound one and can only assume you haven't understood it.

And what has the "trustworthiness of the strikers" got to do with anything? The rest of the discussion, if you recall, was regarding how good the nationalised coal industry. I cited the efficiency, cost and safety as being good, and you attacked the record of disrupted supply. Supply was only disrupted by the coal miners when they were actually on strike!

Regrettably, if you are unable to remain civil, then there is little scope for further debate.

There never was. As you just illustrated by managing to selectively quote me, in an effort to avoid dealing with the points raised. And I'm sure I'd rather be abusive than dissembling.

 

[Rich Lyon]

Better to have it controlled by neither then, perhaps by the government?

Exactly. Which is what Thatcher did when she faced down the Unions.

The unions didn't control the coal industry ... Supply was only disrupted by the coal miners when they were actually on strike!

Oh I see it now. When I wave a gun at someone, I don't have any control over them because I haven't pulled the trigger yet. I feel so relieved.

No, I'm kidding. That's the stupidest argument I've heard in a while.

OK, we're done here.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Better to have it controlled by neither then, perhaps by the government?

Exactly. Which is what Thatcher did when she faced down the Unions.

The unions didn't control the coal industry ... Supply was only disrupted by the coal miners when they were actually on strike!

Oh I see it now. When I wave a gun at someone, I don't have any control over them because I haven't pulled the trigger yet. I feel so relieved.

No, I'm kidding. That's the stupidest argument I've heard in a while.

OK, we're done here.

RL - how did the miners' control the coal industry when they weren't involved in industrial action? Did they set the price of coal and the amount to be extracted, arrange its distribution, decide on the development of new pits and the closure/moth balling of existing ones? Did they set the rates of pay and terms and conditions for all NCB employees?

You can see how your gun analogy isn't very useful?

Louis Mac

 

[Rich Lyon]

Q: how did the [insert workforce name] control the [insert industry name] industry ...

A: "Give me [insert demand] or I go on strike".

cf. "Give me your money or I shoot".

I'm wondering how much plainer this has to be, or can possibly get.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Q: how did the [insert workforce name] control the [insert industry name] industry ...

A: "Give me [insert demand] or I go on strike".

cf. "Give me your money or I shoot".

I'm wondering how much plainer this has to be, or can possibly get.

So no actual answers to my questions; that is answers which contain verifiable details as to how the NUM controlled the coal industry in actual practice rather than in some imagined scary red past. Would you like to have another go at it?

Louis Mac

 

[Rich Lyon]

The NUM controlled the coal industry through the threat and actual practice of strike action, as verified by the occasions on which they carried out that threat (9th January 1972, 4th February 1974 and 12th March 1984) thereby bringing the industry and large parts of the society that depended upon it to a halt and forcing national states of emergency and three day working weeks on society.

Does that work any better for you? "Scary" and "red" I will give you. "Imagined", regrettably, I cannot.

Or did you imagine that the Unions formed for the purpose of practicing their wind instruments in a more convivial social context?

 

[Isambard]

convivial

"Convivial" would be nice wouldn't it? However there's nothing "convivial" about the ruling class wanting to profit out of the crises of their system on the backs of the working class is there, old chap.

Edit: Smilie change.

 

[Sorry.]

Exactly. Which is what Thatcher did when she faced down the Unions.

Right, so you're saying that Thatcher took control over the coal industry, by, err, privatising it.

The unions didn't control the coal industry ... Supply was only disrupted by the coal miners when they were actually on strike!

First off, stop the dishonest selective quoting.

Oh I see it now. When I wave a gun at someone, I don't have any control over them because I haven't pulled the trigger yet. I feel so relieved.

Why can't you see the difference between actually running an industry, and the ability to take collective action to change something within that industry? Any workforce at any workplace anywhere in the world can walkout in strike tomorrow if they like - all they have to do is down tools and walk out - are they all holding a gun to their employers head? Is the mere right to strike such an imposition?

I can't imagine what kind of country you want to live in. One where we all busily do as we're told by whoever happens to be in charge, with no one defiant, or reticent, or standing up for themselves, lest we be "holding a gun to someones head".

Fucking tories.

And you're still too fucking stupid to get what I'm saying.

The nationalised British coal industry was GOOD. It was safe, efficient, cheap. If it worked, then what should we care who was in control?

 

[Rich Lyon]

Right, so you're saying that Thatcher took control over the coal industry

Errr, no, no more than I'm saying a policeman takes over control of the bank when he removes the robber's weapon.

stop the dishonest selective quoting

I can either quote, or I can reproduce you in full. "Selective quote" is a tautology.

Any workforce at any workplace anywhere in the world can walkout in strike tomorrow if they like

Absolutely. And any employer anywhere in the word has the right to replace anyone who walks out with someone who is willing to to do the work. If he can find no-one, then he concedes to the demands of the striker. This is called "the market". The wage is set by the extent to which the employer and the employed value the work. It is not set by exploiting your strategic position to foist national emergencies on countries.

It was safe, efficient, cheap

We are off topic now, as I've taken the question to address the morality of holding a nation to ransom in pursuit of self interest. However, to address this point. The production and consumption of coal make a considerable contribution to global greenhouse gas production. It also causes considerable local environmental impacts including land degradation, subsidence, dust and noise generation. It only appeared "cheap" because it neglected the total cost of managing its impacts. When those impacts are taken into account and compared with alterative fuel sources e.g. gas it is ruinously expensive.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The NUM controlled the coal industry through the threat and actual practice of strike action, as verified by the occasions on which they carried out that threat (9th January 1972, 4th February 1974 and 12th March 1984) thereby bringing the industry and large parts of the society that depended upon it to a halt and forcing national states of emergency and three day working weeks on society.

Does that work any better for you? "Scary" and "red" I will give you. "Imagined", regrettably, I cannot.

Or did you imagine that the Unions formed for the purpose of practicing their wind instruments in a more convivial social context?

Rich - the NUM pursued the interests of its members, which is not the same as 'controlling the coal industry' (although some would argue that they were better placed to do so than those actually running it...teh govt and the NCB). Controlling the coal industry would require them to undertake all of the activities I listed above; this is why I asked you to give actual examples of them carrying out these activities. You still haven't done so because you can't. Instead you choose to give me a list of three strike dates - all of which I'm well aware of having lived through and been affected by all three disputes - that is occasions when the members of the NUM decided that the best way to pursue their interests (over pay, conditions and the retention of jobs...not you will notice control of their industry and all that implies) was to take strike action. Perhaps it's best if I leave you to your imagined world of NUM boegy men, disinclined as you seem to be to face up to the reality of what actually happened.

Louis Mac

 

[Isambard]

When those impacts are taken into account and compared with alterative fuel sources e.g. gas it is ruinously expensive.

Except of course the environmental and safety costs are now paid by miners in China.........

There isn't a strong NUM in China representing miners. Maybe you should go away and look at statistics for mining accidents. You might see the odd horriffic mining accident in China on the TV in Europe every couple of years or so but there are dozens more you never hear about.

 

[Sorry.]

Errr, no, no more than I'm saying a policeman takes over control of the bank when he removes the robber's weapon.

Can we stop talking in metaphors please ffs.

I can either quote, or I can reproduce you in full. "Selective quote" is a tautology.

It was the dishonesty rather than the selection I was objecting to. Connecting two remarks whilst ommitting the explanatory text in between.

Absolutely. And any employer anywhere in the word has the right to replace anyone who walks out with someone who is willing to to do the work. If he can find no-one, then he concedes to the demands of the striker. This is called "the market". The wage is set by the extent to which the employer and the employed value the work. It is not set by exploiting your strategic position to foist national emergencies on countries.

What, so we arbitrarily omit some forms of industrial action from "the market" because they inconvenience us? The NUM used collective action to press demands upon their employer, just like any other trade union. Just because they were good at it, doesn't make it a qualitatively different kind of action.

We are off topic now, as I've taken the question to address the morality of holding a nation to ransom in pursuit of self interest.

That's nice for you. It's not what the question is about, but you go right ahead.

However, to address this point. The production and consumption of coal make a considerable contribution to global greenhouse gas production. It also causes considerable local environmental impacts including land degradation, subsidence, dust and noise generation. It only appeared "cheap" because it neglected the total cost of managing its impacts. When those impacts are taken into account and compared with alterative fuel sources e.g. gas it is ruinously expensive.

Again, absolutely irrelevant to whether or not British coal was an effective industry. Their job was dig up coal not set energy policy.

Now, same question - if it worked, why does it matter who was in control? (it seems you answer the bits of my posts that you fancy addressing rather than actually dealing with the sum total, which is highly irritating)

 

[Rich Lyon]

Controlling the coal industry would require them to undertake all of the activities I listed above

Really? Controlling a horse requires me to eat from a nosebag and wear metal shoes? I find that a truly bizarre proposition. To control is, by definition, to have power over. Having power over something, and doing it yourself, are two separate things. Hmmmmm.

members of the NUM decided that the best way to pursue their interests ... was to take strike action

In 1972, members of the NUM decided that the best way to secure their demand of a 43% pay rise was to halt all power station output, steelworks, ports and the movement of all fuel supplies. This caused a national emergency and the introduction of a 3-day week to conserve electricity in order to allow the miners to become the most highly paid workers in the country. And in 1974, the miners exploited soaring oil prices caused by the Arab-Israeli war to force another national emergency and 3-day week on society.

You have my permission to leave what you like to my imagination. These, however, are the facts, which I'd be happy to continue to explore with you.

can we stop talking in metaphors please

A metaphor is a fairly conventional and uncontroversial tool for exposing and clarifying logic. Do you find having your logic exposed and clarified uncomfortable?

so we arbitrarily omit some forms of industrial action from "the market" because they inconvenience us?

Bringing the supply of Cabbage Patch Dolls to a halt is inconvenient. Bringing the nation's energy supply to a halt fundamentally damages the nation. There is nothing arbitrary about chosing to prohibit it.

absolutely irrelevant to whether or not British coal was an effective industry

But absolutely relevant to the point of yours it was addressing, which was that coal was cheap.

if it worked, why does it matter who was in control?

We had three national emergencies in 10 years. How many national emergencies would we need to have before you concluded that it wasn't working?

it seems you answer the bits of my posts that you fancy addressing rather than actually dealing with the sum total, which is highly irritating

I answer the bits of your posts in which you appear least afflicted by Tourettes syndrome. The more civil you are, the more I'll answer. It's your choice.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Controlling the coal industry would require them to undertake all of the activities I listed above

Really? Controlling a horse requires me to eat from a nosebag and wear metal shoes? I find that a truly bizarre proposition. To control is, by definition, to have power over. Having power over something, and doing it yourself, are two separate things. Hmmmmm.

members of the NUM decided that the best way to pursue their interests ... was to take strike action

In 1972, members of the NUM decided that the best way to secure their demand of a 43% pay rise was to halt all power station output, steelworks, ports and the movement of all fuel supplies. This caused a national emergency and the introduction of a 3-day week to conserve electricity in order to allow the miners to become the most highly paid workers in the country. And in 1974, the miners exploited soaring oil prices caused by the Arab-Israeli war to force another national emergency and 3-day week on society.

You have my permission to leave what you like to my imagination. These, however, are the facts, which I'd be happy to continue to explore with you.

Your horse analogy is even more full of holes than your gun one; a horse is a horse and an industry is a complex coming together of various processes and actors e.g. extraction, planning, distribution, face workers, pit deputies, managers and strategists. To control an industry you need to be able not simply to stop these processes and actors but also to make them work; it's the difference between being able to get your horse to do what you want or simply to stop it from doing what it likes.

Moving on: the miners couldn't stop power stations steelworks and all the rest. The people able to do that were those working in those industries and very importantly those working in the distributative industries (esp. British rail); it was solidarity action and the respect for picket lines (both protected under ILO provisions recognised by the rest of Europe) which gave rise to the situation you describe. So once again your imagined all powerful NUM turns out to be nothing of the sort. If it is organised labour acting in solidarity that gives you the hibee gebees then say, but I'd lay off the scary NUM hyperbole if I were you, it makes you sound a bit not altogether there.

Louis Mac

 

[Sorry.]

A metaphor is a fairly conventional and uncontroversial tool for exposing and clarifying logic.

I find that seldom to be the case. Especially with yourself.

Bringing the supply of Cabbage Patch Dolls to a halt is inconvenient. Bringing the nation's energy supply to a halt fundamentally damages the nation. There is nothing arbitrary about chosing to prohibit it.

Are you misunderstanding me deliberately or something? In what way does the NUM's behaviour depart from any other trade union taking industrial action to defend or advance pay and conditions? You were the one making daft comments about the unions controlling the coal industry - justify it.

But absolutely relevant to the point of yours it was addressing, which was that coal was cheap.

Which you erected as straw man through selectively quoting. British coal being cheap was an example of why it was good as a coal industry not why dependence on coal was a sound energy policy. Coal dependence was the reality - the question was whether nationalisation was the means by which to deal with that dependence.

We had three national emergencies in 10 years. How many national emergencies would we need to have before you concluded that it wasn't working?

But of course the government takes no blame for them?

I answer the bits of your posts in which you appear least afflicted by Tourettes syndrome. The more civil you are, the more I'll answer. It's your choice.

fuck off. you patronising twat.

 

[Rich Lyon]

To control an industry you need to be able not simply to stop these processes and actors but also to make them work

No. To control an industry, all you need is the power to stop these processes. The threat is sufficient to get those who do extraction, planning, distribution, etc. to do so in a manner that suits your purpose. There really isn't any way of explaining this simple idea any more simply.

the miners couldn't stop power stations steelworks and all the rest ... it was solidarity action and the respect for picket lines

As the miners could count on "solidarity action" and "respect for picket lines", in what way does it matter whether the miners by themselves had the power to stop power stations and "all the rest".

(I understand your queasiness at enumerating the elements of "all the rest", given their fatal implications to the morality of your champions actions. I also note your understandable omission of "intimidation and threat of violence to so-called scabs and their families" from your list of more noble attributes).

(Edited: I almost forgot. It wasn't the threat of violence against people who wanted to work - it was the murder of people who wanted to work)

They had, in every respect that matters, the power to deprive the nation of its energy supply. And yes, organised labour holding the nation to ransom and murdering those who would stand in their way gave the nation the hebegebees.

Which is why the nation pulled its fangs.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

To control an industry you need to be able not simply to stop these processes and actors but also to make them work

No. To control an industry, all you need is the power to stop these processes. The threat is sufficient to get those who do extraction, planning, distribution, etc. to do so in a manner that suits your purpose. There really isn't any way of explaining this simple idea any more simply.

the miners couldn't stop power stations steelworks and all the rest ... it was solidarity action and the respect for picket lines

As the miners could count on "solidarity action" and "respect for picket lines", in what way does it matter whether the miners by themselves had the power to stop power stations and "all the rest".

(I understand your queasiness at enumerating the elements of "all the rest", given their fatal implications to the morality of your champions actions. I also note your understandable omission of "intimidation and threat of violence to so-called scabs and their families" from your list of more noble attributes).

(Edited: I almost forgot. It wasn't the threat of violence against people who wanted to work - it was the murder of people who wanted to work)

They had, in every respect that matters, the power to deprive the nation of its energy supply. And yes, organised labour holding the nation to ransom and murdering those who would stand in their way gave the nation the hebegebees.

Which is why the nation pulled its fangs.

Your a strange one Rich; if you think control consists only of the ability to stop something happening remind me never to get a lift in your car.

The activity of those respecting picket lines and showing solidarity matters because it is just that; their chosen activity, not that of the NUM.

As for violence: well no violence at the cocnlusion of the 'Battle of Saltley Gates', two miners killed while on picket duty during the 1984/85 (plus a number of other while travel to pickets and scavenging slag heaps for fuel) and the now infamous BBC re-write of the chronology of the 'Battle of Orgreave'. You get the picture; the NUM has no monopoly of the use of force and compared to the state it was a feather weight novice.

Last but not least my favourite part of your post; the nation pulling the fangs of the NUM. You've moved on from the red scare miners, to the monstrous miners; I'm sure you could put your vivid imagination to better use. As for the idea that the nation (whatever that means, apart from obviously not including the miners their families and their many millions of supporters) acted against the NUM you're wrong again (still at least it's consistent). The British population was divided in relation to its attitude towards the strike as it was in its support of political parties that either sought to attack or protect trade union rights.

As a matter of interest how old are you? If your a youngster then I suggest you dig a bit deeper than the Thatcherite accounts you seem to be basing your weird generalisations. If not...well just stop lying.

Louis Mac

 

[Isambard]

Some top posts Louis Mac!

 

[newbie]

The British population was divided in relation to its attitude towards the strike as it was in its support of political parties that either sought to attack or protect trade union rights.
Louis Mac

The balance of that division shifted in the decade between Heath's 'who rules' election and 1984. It's pretty inconceivable that the early 70s w/c would have allowed the miners to be starved into defeat, laws against picketing or not. They endorsed the LP, tied to the unions, even after the 3 day week. Is there nothing to be learnt from that shift?

 

[Isambard]

Not correct Newbie, in the 1984 strike the proportion of the population that wanted the miners to be smashed a la Thatcher were a minority. Even most of those who didn't support the miners wanted a settled agreement.

Of course the level and nature of solidarity had changed over the years.
That had been deliberately enginered.
Go and have a google for Ridley and "salami policy".

 

[newbie]

The population watched the strike on telly, not from the picket lines. They endorsed the Thatcher project at elections in advance of the strike and after it had been defeated.

I'm at a loss to undestand how politicians can engineer changes in attitude: they seek to persuade, and they can create a legislative framework, but they can't force attitudes to change. After all, those same politicians engineered the conditions for a change in local government finance only a very few years later. The poll tax campaign showed that the people weren't prepared to be engineered like that.