The Miners' Strike 1984: The Battle for Britain

[Alickadoo]

A legal adviser to the Welsh government wants to start the inquiry into the violence at Orgreave.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv316l2lypo

[Alickadoo]

C4ME said:

Alickadoo said:

A legal adviser to the Welsh government wants to start the inquiry into the violence at Orgreave.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv316l2lypo

It would be a positive step to revisit the events now enough time has passed. The BBC were complicit at the time in reversing the sequence of events in their news reporting to incorrectly show the miners starting the violence. Undoing some of the misleading facts about the day would help give a better perspective on events.

That's right.

Why were the miners there in the first place? It wasn't a coal mine, it was a coking plant, no miners worked there.

You couldn't persuade any miners not to go into work, because the weren't any!

[DodgyGeezer]

Alickadoo said:

That's right.

Why were the miners there in the first place? It wasn't a coal mine, it was a coking plant, no miners worked there.

You couldn't persuade any miners not to go into work, because the weren't any!

nonononono it's awl de evul toreez nd der po-lice thugs...

[Megaflow]

Alickadoo said:

C4ME said:

Alickadoo said:

A legal adviser to the Welsh government wants to start the inquiry into the violence at Orgreave.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv316l2lypo

It would be a positive step to revisit the events now enough time has passed. The BBC were complicit at the time in reversing the sequence of events in their news reporting to incorrectly show the miners starting the violence. Undoing some of the misleading facts about the day would help give a better perspective on events.

That's right.

Why were the miners there in the first place? It wasn't a coal mine, it was a coking plant, no miners worked there.

You couldn't persuade any miners not to go into work, because the weren't any!

Indeed. Given they should not have been there in the first place and it was 40 years ago, i'd be very careful digging this up.

[The Gauge]

Alickadoo said:

A legal adviser to the Welsh government wants to start the inquiry into the violence at Orgreave.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv316l2lypo

£ I £ can't £ think £ of £ any £ reason £ why £ a £ legal £ team £ would £ want £ an £ inquiry £ into £ this £

[XCP]

I took lots of photos but lost my films. 40 years ago.
Righto then.
Add him to the list of credible witnesses...

[Skodapondy]

Wonder where I've heard about a Tory Government, the media and South Yorkshire Police in a similar vein before now.... Oh that was it, Hillsborough.

[Alickadoo]

Skodapondy said:

Wonder where I've heard about a Tory Government, the media and South Yorkshire Police in a similar vein before now.... Oh that was it, Hillsborough.

And who crushed those football supporters?

[Skodapondy]

Alickadoo said:

And who crushed those football supporters?

And who let the crush happen? And who reported lies? And who blamed the supporters? If that day had happened to fans from anywhere else but Merseyside, in my opinion those responsible would have been punished.

[Legacywr]

Skodapondy said:

Alickadoo said:

And who crushed those football supporters?

And who let the crush happen? And who reported lies? And who blamed the supporters? If that day had happened to fans from anywhere else but Merseyside, in my opinion those responsible would have been punished.

Those most responsible are the fans that were outside the ground without tickets…

[DodgyGeezer]

Skodapondy said:

Alickadoo said:

And who crushed those football supporters?

And who let the crush happen? And who reported lies? And who blamed the supporters? If that day had happened to fans from anywhere else but Merseyside, in my opinion those responsible would have been punished.

let's be fair here - 4 year previously we had the perpetual victims Liverpool fans at Heysal, not surprising that the finger of blame was pointed. That said it is beyond disgraceful that there wasn't a proper inquiry into the whats, whys and hows and that it took a further 20+ years for the truth to come out

[skwdenyer]

On the topic of whether the Govt should have kept the mines open even if “unprofitable” (noting that profitability is often decidedly variable depending upon polices and treatment of certain costs), for a state-run industry the “profitability” equation is far larger and more nuanced.

For instance, what were the costs of regeneration, lost taxation (especially from lower-paid jobs), benefits, and so on? What was the opportunity cost of losing a strategic coal asset? What were the knock-on effects of the reduced industry in the particular areas?

It is not at all certain that closing the pits was a net financial benefit to the state. It appears the decision tree had many ideological branches.

[DodgyGeezer]

skwdenyer said:

On the topic of whether the Govt should have kept the mines open even if “unprofitable” (noting that profitability is often decidedly variable depending upon polices and treatment of certain costs), for a state-run industry the “profitability” equation is far larger and more nuanced.

For instance, what were the costs of regeneration, lost taxation (especially from lower-paid jobs), benefits, and so on? What was the opportunity cost of losing a strategic coal asset? What were the knock-on effects of the reduced industry in the particular areas?

It is not at all certain that closing the pits was a net financial benefit to the state. It appears the decision tree had many ideological branches.

and to a degree that is correct - it was a battle between the miners who thought that they should govern and the government who actually did. It was one that needed to be won by the government (to be fair any government) and thankfully was, admittedly in part due to monumental stupidity by the NUM

[skwdenyer]

DodgyGeezer said:

skwdenyer said:

On the topic of whether the Govt should have kept the mines open even if “unprofitable” (noting that profitability is often decidedly variable depending upon polices and treatment of certain costs), for a state-run industry the “profitability” equation is far larger and more nuanced.

For instance, what were the costs of regeneration, lost taxation (especially from lower-paid jobs), benefits, and so on? What was the opportunity cost of losing a strategic coal asset? What were the knock-on effects of the reduced industry in the particular areas?

It is not at all certain that closing the pits was a net financial benefit to the state. It appears the decision tree had many ideological branches.

and to a degree that is correct - it was a battle between the miners who thought that they should govern and the government who actually did. It was one that needed to be won by the government (to be fair any government) and thankfully was, admittedly in part due to monumental stupidity by the NUM

That’s one PoV. But it only *needed* to be won by Govt because Govt handled it so badly in the first place. It was an ideological battle before it was an economic one. The previous Govt had no working majority and was brought down by a confidence motion (lost by a single vote). Thatcher & co were implacably opposed to the unions, and made little secret of being prepared to destroy entire industries in their ideological desire to smash the unions.

A more nuanced approach would have been far better for the country IMHO.

[Legacywr]

skwdenyer said:

DodgyGeezer said:

skwdenyer said:

On the topic of whether the Govt should have kept the mines open even if “unprofitable” (noting that profitability is often decidedly variable depending upon polices and treatment of certain costs), for a state-run industry the “profitability” equation is far larger and more nuanced.

For instance, what were the costs of regeneration, lost taxation (especially from lower-paid jobs), benefits, and so on? What was the opportunity cost of losing a strategic coal asset? What were the knock-on effects of the reduced industry in the particular areas?

It is not at all certain that closing the pits was a net financial benefit to the state. It appears the decision tree had many ideological branches.

and to a degree that is correct - it was a battle between the miners who thought that they should govern and the government who actually did. It was one that needed to be won by the government (to be fair any government) and thankfully was, admittedly in part due to monumental stupidity by the NUM

That’s one PoV. But it only *needed* to be won by Govt because Govt handled it so badly in the first place. It was an ideological battle before it was an economic one. The previous Govt had no working majority and was brought down by a confidence motion (lost by a single vote). Thatcher & co were implacably opposed to the unions, and made little secret of being prepared to destroy entire industries in their ideological desire to smash the unions.

A more nuanced approach would have been far better for the country IMHO.

Maggie came into power partly because of the unions. She wanted to take them on, and this was the first real opertunity she had.

[skwdenyer]

Legacywr said:

skwdenyer said:

DodgyGeezer said:

skwdenyer said:

On the topic of whether the Govt should have kept the mines open even if “unprofitable” (noting that profitability is often decidedly variable depending upon polices and treatment of certain costs), for a state-run industry the “profitability” equation is far larger and more nuanced.

For instance, what were the costs of regeneration, lost taxation (especially from lower-paid jobs), benefits, and so on? What was the opportunity cost of losing a strategic coal asset? What were the knock-on effects of the reduced industry in the particular areas?

It is not at all certain that closing the pits was a net financial benefit to the state. It appears the decision tree had many ideological branches.

and to a degree that is correct - it was a battle between the miners who thought that they should govern and the government who actually did. It was one that needed to be won by the government (to be fair any government) and thankfully was, admittedly in part due to monumental stupidity by the NUM

That’s one PoV. But it only *needed* to be won by Govt because Govt handled it so badly in the first place. It was an ideological battle before it was an economic one. The previous Govt had no working majority and was brought down by a confidence motion (lost by a single vote). Thatcher & co were implacably opposed to the unions, and made little secret of being prepared to destroy entire industries in their ideological desire to smash the unions.

A more nuanced approach would have been far better for the country IMHO.

Maggie came into power partly because of the unions. She wanted to take them on, and this was the first real opertunity she had.

Yes, she came to power in part because of the unions, who in turn were in large part highly opposed to the prudent economic measures being proposed by the Labour government, which in turn were only necessary due to the complete shambles left by the Heath government.

The primary winner were the Saachis, who very ably convinced a lot of people that black was white in that regard.

And oil/gas? Our spoils were spunked up the wall as tax cuts, rather than invested for a rainy day. More ideology - Thatcher may have liked to “balance the family budget” but she had no compunction in saving nothing for the future.

[hidetheelephants]

Except she didn't cut the tax burden, just shuffled it around a bit so different bits of the economy and population got soaked.

[Alickadoo]

skwdenyer said:

Yes, she came to power in part because of the unions, who in turn were in large part highly opposed to the prudent economic measures being proposed by the Labour government, which in turn were only necessary due to the complete shambles left by the Heath government.

The primary winner were the Saachis, who very ably convinced a lot of people that black was white in that regard.

And oil/gas? Our spoils were spunked up the wall as tax cuts, rather than invested for a rainy day. More ideology - Thatcher may have liked to “balance the family budget” but she had no compunction in saving nothing for the future.

She came into power because you voted for her.

'No, no, not you, skwdenyer - the Great British Electorate, they voted for her.

Why did you do that - are you stupid?

'No, no, not you skwdenyer - the Great British Electorate, they must be stupid.

Well, if you are stupid, perhaps you are not fit to vote - then what are you going to do?

[skwdenyer]

hidetheelephants said:

Except she didn't cut the tax burden, just shuffled it around a bit so different bits of the economy and population got soaked.

This is a complex one, but broadly you’re quite wrong.

OBR said:

Between 1981 and 1995, the UK tax burden fell from a high of 33.9 per cent of GDP in 1982 to a low of 27.4 per cent in 1993, 6.8 and 10.6 per cent of GDP below the G7 and EU14 averages, respectively. This largely reflected a fall in taxes on income and profits (of 3.0 per cent of GDP), with successive cuts to the top and basic rates of income tax during the period and a sharp fall in oil and gas revenues (as outlined in Box 4.3). By contrast, the tax burdens in other G7 and western European economies continued to rise (by 2.3 and 3.2 per cent of GDP respectively) over the same period.

That drop was wholly unsustainable.

[hidetheelephants]

The problem with that data is it includes time outside her premiership; the UK tax burden didn't really start to fall much until 84/85.