Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
Serious question for all the Thatcher detractors on here about the miners strike in Britain:
Why did the government own the coal mining industry? By today's North American terms, national ownership of natural resources like that seems rather antiquated (Maybe precisely because of people like Thatcher).
When a mine or any other business, plant, etc. for that matter turns unprofitable, is it really prudent for the public to subsidize it's continued existance beyond it's commercial life for the sake of union jobs?
Gold rushes and busts, oil booms and busts, fishing booms and busts, all create and destroy communities all the world over. No one is going to shed a tear for the oil sands of Fort McMurray when it's viability and profitability inevitably ebbs. What's so special about UK coal miners and the UK situation at that time that makes Thatcher so evil for bringing about an end to it?
|
Cowboy,
The National Coal Board (NCB) was created by Clement Attlee's Labour government via the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act of 1946, which came into force on 1 January 1947. British collieries were taken under government control during both World Wars as a way to exert tighter control over the production and distribution of coal. Coal reserves were nationalized in 1942 though the actual mines were not. Nationalization of industry was a core belief amongst Britain's Labour Party and the coal industry was no different. Many of Labour's old guard came from these area - Yorkshire, Lancashire, North Wales, Scotland and many were from coal mining communities. This was close to the hearts of many, many Labour politicians.
Also, during this time, the Labour government oversaw the creation of Britain's "cradle-to-grave, state-run, social welfare state" which was outlined in Lord William Beveridge's 1942 report bearing his name. In this report he advocated the banishment of poverty and want from British society. He identified five key areas of illness, ignorance, disease, squalor and want that needed to be systematically removed from society. Creating the National Health Service was one of many reforms to be introduced at the time and nationalization was seen as a necessary component of this as it led to massive "public sector" job creation, which again is a core component of socialist political doctrine. Attlee, Bevin and Bevan were simply doing what they believed to be right and the best for postwar Britain, which was struggling, socially and economically. Britain finally made it's last payment to the US for the debt incurred during the Second World War on 31 December 2006. Yes it was struggling.
The Attlee Government began a process of social welfare creation that was intended to provide British citizens with everything they could need, though not "want" as this was anathema to the conditions laid out in the Beveridge Report. Britain's newly-formed welfare state and re-formed economy (heavily based on public sector work) had entered into a new era. It is not that the creation of the UK welfare state was a bad thing, quite the opposite, it
was necessary. Due it's "size" and comprehensiveness, and they way in which it was pitched to people, it has helped to further some social problems that continue to persist, such as instilling a sense of entitlement across regions. The belief that it is the "government's job" or "not my responsibility" has become an all-too common refrain emanating from modern Britain. The roots are deep, very deep and it is with this lens that one needs to view the events of the 1980s in Britain, including the 1984-85 miners strike.
Coal politics had been an emotive issue for many years in the UK. In fact, coal had been referred to as the "lifeblood of the UK" by some commentators. Prior to the 1984-85 strike, work stoppages had occurred most significantly in 1924 and 1974. The 1984-85 strike was significant for many reasons. First the strike was not deemed official or "legal" as the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) led by Arthur Scargill failed to hold a ballot prior to the strike due to the uncertainty of the vote's outcome. Instead local strikes were encouraged with the first beginning in South Yorkshire. Scargill's belief was that if you could mobilize the workforce to strike locally, it would marginalize the need for a national ballot as the movement would be a grassroots, populist one. This sort of backfired on the NUM as certain areas were not keen on the idea of a strike as their mines were profitable and productive and were in no danger of being one of the 20 pits slated for closure. Resistance to striking was greatest in Nottinghamshire. The NUMs reaction to this was to send picketers from Yorkshire into Nottinghamshire to intimidate and influence these miners into supporting a work stoppage.
Also, as a result of the lack of a nationwide vote, wives and dependents of the striking miners were not able to claim any sort of income support. Striking workers cannot claim, regardless of a ballot, but their dependents could claim. Because the strike wasn't "legal" the government had no obligation to provide any sort of relief or support for the striking families. This was a massive failing of NUM leadership, though they were able to convince their supporters and some members of the public that it was the government's fault, not theirs. Interestingly public opinion at the time was mixed, though certain polls show that support for the miners was less than that of the employers. (July 1984 Gallup poll shows - 40% said employers; 33% were for the miners; 19% were for neither and 8% did not know. December 1984 poll shows - 51% had most sympathy for the employers; 26% for the miners; 18% for neither and 5% did not know.)
The British Coal industry had been in decline since its peak in 1913 when it produced 284 million tonnes. Before 1914 demand for coal was rising at an annual rate of 4%; after the war British exports of coal plummeted and domestic demand remained stagnant. Throughout the 1950s and 60s it was more cost effective to import coal from places such as West Germany where they had massive open-pit coal mines as opposed to the deep shaft mines in the UK, which was more expensive to produce. By the 1970s, the British Coal industry was vastly unprofitable and needed to be restructured. By the time Scargill took the helm, miners were among the highest-paid industrial workers in the country and they were often asked to support other groups fighting for higher wages. This did not resonate very strongly with a significant portion of the population, many of whom were struggling to make ends meet. But I digress.
The way in which the NUM was taken on by the Thatcher Government is what a lot of people have an issue with. Miners were essentially pawns in the fight between Thatcher and Scargill, which had become personal. People lost not only their jobs but their livelihoods and communities suffered. While some attempt was made to reinvest in some of the hardest hit communities, this ultimately did not go far enough and left thousands of unemployed miners unemployable as they had little education and no other marketable skills. This still angers people in these areas to this day. From the other side, it was common knowledge that the union was complicit in bringing down both the Heath and Callaghan Governments and this was not acceptable for adherents to the Westminster Parliamentary process of which Mrs Thatcher was one. For her reducing the power and political influence of the trades unions was of the utmost importance to her mandate. The NUM was seen to wield disproportionate political power and as a result it was going to be confronted head on by a Prime Minister willing to take up the fight where her predecessors, Wilson, Heath and Callaghan (Labour, Tory, Labour) were not.
Rightly or wrongly, many saw this as an attack on a particular class, socio-economic background, nation (Scotland, Wales) and region (north v south). Thatcher has come to embody all that was wrong at the time and is perceived to have "killed off industry" which isn't all that helpful or accurate.
For an overview of the economics of the situation see this:
Reasons for the Decline in the UK Coal industry
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/64...coal-industry/
Like most emotive debates there is a lot of misinformation and incorrect data used and quoted by both sides. For example, it is a common misconception that the Thatcher Government privatized the railways. This in fact occurred over 2 years after she left 10 Downing Street and was enacted under the Major Government in January 1993. While no fan of nationalization, she was opposed to privatizing British Rail for many reasons and simply presuming that it was under her leadership that something happened is unhelpful and counterproductive. This helps to further an already polarized set of issues and prevents any reasonable dialogue from occurring. See:
FactCheck: the Thatcher myths
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...er-myths/13236
I didn't want to comment any further on this topic as I feel it has become laborious and tiresome. But I felt that it is my responsibility as an academic to possibly redress some inaccuracies and fallacies in this debate. Like most other UK-based historians, economists and political scientists, and expert commentators, I believe that Mrs Thatcher got more right than wrong - though she did have a few howlers - and that history will remember her more positively than either her opponents or successors and that Britain was left in better condition in 1990 than it was in 1979, regardless of what the Billy Braggs and Morrisseys of the world have to say. For them it is emotive, for me it is pragmatic. And that is how I think it should be, pragmatic.