King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: BBC : Now using the MINERS STRIKE to whip up New Labour support
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
veritas	the cat is right about some of the tactics being wrong but that was on both sides. The real problem-the Thatcher governments attempted 'reforms' were idealogically driven and therein always lies the problem. Plus they were overseen by 'businessmen' who the Conservatives were in the grip of-and who have driven Nu Labour policy. The miners quite correctly feared for their future. No miner genuinley wanted his kids to become miners as well but if that's all you know then of course they worry about future generations. Give people nothing real in the place of change and they will fight tooth and nail to keep what they know. But 'divide & conquer' was a tactic that worked for Thatcher. We could debate forever about Scargill's tactics-his motives were genuine. But-as surely we have seen in the past 12 months and as I have known all my life-you cannot trust corporations to set the running-we all lose in the end. Today's financial collapse was about 40 years in the making. You always pay-they don't...as an individual you are prey to market forces but under Thatcherism/Blairism/Reaganism-big business isn't and when they fall apart-you bail them out and you keep on paying. If we had real capitalism it would be OK.
Foz	I seem to remember that in the 1990's we were even importing most of our coal from the likes of Germany because UK sourced coal was too expensive!
The Cat	I lived surrounded by mining communities in the 1980s, although I was not connected with that industry in any other way. I heard arguments on both sides. Scargill's main mistake was to deny the strikers a ballot. His second mistake was to assume that all of them would unite behind him. He split the union down the middle. One half held a ballot and went back to work. The other half followed Scargill and lost out big time. Of course it's more complex, but that was the basic bones of it. If Scargill had been clever enough to use and exploit the system he might have had more success, but it's a fact that the demand for coal had fallen while the price of British coal had risen. Common sense dictated that the industry could not continue as it was, and that some pits had to close. As it happened, because of the strike, more pits were closed in my part of the world than had originally been intended. It's still a very emotive issue with old mining families. Nobody likes change, and it was more about fighting change than anything else.
veritas	I'm sorry but I'm with Elliott Peters on this one BR. (I was there on the barricades in support-never been down a mine-too scarred !) You can view it 2 ways-most certainly the eventuall outome was great prosperity-for a few but the decimation of vast communties and traditons was the beginning of a great slide and today we see the result. But like many things in an economy there are swings and roundabouts. What profit is made today is spent on filling tomorrow's jails. Of course money was made while thouands lost their jobs and the next 2 generations were plunged into years of inactvity with devestating conclusions-kids on crack, local crime etc etc. You either view society as a sort of co-op..you can slash workers at your business and naturally make bigger profits..you can hire more workers make less profit but if we all co-operate in that manner the economy grows. Eventually by bits and pieces we all get a little richer..there is room for entrepreneurs and clever busines types-and we end up with a co-hesive society (more or less). The Miner's Strikes era was the beginning of the great experiment of Thatcherism/Reagonomics and the final score card isn't looking good. Their economic policies were experimental-and they have failed. It doesn't mean something new shouldn't be tried but if you treat the vast bulk of people as incidental to your experiment..well I'm not too sure that that is really the purpose of politics. 2 things: the very idea that Brown should even toast the Miner's Strikes-he and the rogue Tony Boar were Thatherism on steroids. Both went further than she ever dreamed of. Britain survived Thatcher and she possibly made some excellent and positive changes..I doubt the same can be said of Blair or Brown. Arhtur Scargill..never a personaly likeable man... was really yesterday's George Galloway. Every attempt was made to fit Scargill up with all manner of false claims-from expensive holidays and homes bought with union funds, USSR pay-offs etc. None were proven and when all were proved false they made about page 34 in the tabloids-no magnifying glass suplied. In the end he was an honourable bloke just staying true to his roots and as a union leader. I should think he would despise Nu Labour and their claims to an involvement with the Miner's cause.
robbiex	When businesses are losing money, people lose jobs. If an IT company loses money and sheds jobs, they don't start rioting. They just accept that is the nature of business. It should be the same for miners. It was uneconomical for the pits to stay open, therefore they have to close and lose jobs. I don't think that there are many people growing up in Wales thinking, "I wish those coal mines were still open, wouldn't it be nice to work there".