[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Tom

Well basically it was clear that she didn't like the north and shut down the mines etc- the north hasn't actually recovered from that and I doubt it ever will.

She didnt close down the mines, lack of orders, bad management, during the miners strike some mines were allowed to fall into disrepair. Lots of mines would have closed anyway as they were at the time economically unviable.

If you want to know what really screwed up the coal industry look at Uncle Arthur and the leadership of the NUM, flogging a dead horse. Not allowing the industry to be slimmed down into something that could have survived. Miners out on strike living on handouts, yet Arthur and co had practically a millionaires lifestyle. In fact he is still living a good life on his NUM pension. True representation.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Shasown

She didnt close down the mines, lack of orders, bad management, during the miners strike some mines were allowed to fall into disrepair. Lots of mines would have closed anyway as they were at the time economically unviable.

And the reason for this was the outsourcing of our coal-mining industry to foreign countries brought about by Thatcher's economic reforms. As a result we have become dependent on imported fossil fuels and fell into a trade deficit from which we might never recover.

If you want to know what really screwed up the coal industry look at Uncle Arthur and the leadership of the NUM, flogging a dead horse. Not allowing the industry to be slimmed down into something that could have survived. Miners out on strike living on handouts, yet Arthur and co had practically a millionaires lifestyle. In fact he is still living a good life on his NUM pension. True representation.

Scargill is just about the most extreme, militant example of a British trade unionist you could have mentioned. Nobody is saying unions should be given the clout they enjoyed back in the 1970's, but it's not too much to ask that an employer isn't given carte blanche over making large sections of his workforce redundant whenever he pleases. If this were an indigenous industry such as coalmining, the government would have offered its support before Thatcher made our industries subordinate to the whims of the global market without considering the inevitable trade deficit and of course the social consequences.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

And the reason for this was the outsourcing of our coal-mining industry to foreign countries brought about by Thatcher's economic reforms. As a result we have become dependent on imported fossil fuels and fell into a trade deficit from which we might never recover.

Lack of reinvestment made over the previous three or four decades, smaller wildcat strikes, secondary picketing, the NUM leadership pulling the miners out in support of other industries in dispute, all meant the NCB couldnt meet orders, so where were powers staions etc meant to buy coal to burn for electricity?

I dont know if you were around in the seventies, but the unions while helping bring about fantastic changes in health and safety, standards of living etc. also did a lot of damage to Britain's market economy.

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Scargill is just about the most extreme, militant example of a British trade unionist you could have mentioned. Nobody is saying unions should be given the clout they enjoyed back in the 1970's, but it's not too much to ask that an employer isn't given carte blanche over making large sections of his workforce redundant whenever he pleases.

Thats the nature of the beast though isnt it? If its unviable do you continue to pump public money into supporting something that may be better off dying a death. Something has to give and at the time there were also problems with the Steel Industry, Motor Industry, Shipbuilding, Air Transport, Aircraft Building, the list goes on and on.

Protectionist policies that some political and union leaders advocated at the time would have simply drained the national economy, worse than Tony and Gordy have done over the last few years.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Lack of reinvestment made over the previous three or four decades, smaller wildcat strikes, secondary picketing, the NUM leadership pulling the miners out in support of other industries in dispute, all meant the NCB couldnt meet orders, so where were powers staions etc meant to buy coal to burn for electricity?

I dont know if you were around in the seventies, but the unions while helping bring about fantastic changes in health and safety, standards of living etc. also did a lot of damage to Britain's market economy.

Some valid points here. I am not old enough to remember the 1970's, but I live in an area that has suffered the consequences of the political upheaval of the 1980's. My town is a shadow of its former self. Most of its working class earned a living as labourers and mine workers. Their livelihood was taken away when their limited skills no longer served any purpose and the mines were forced to close down. Many are still unemployed and my own generation has had a far more difficult time climbing the social ladder than those their parents' age.

You may not believe it, but I don't see the Tory supporters or members as the villains of the late 70's, early 80's. People had their reasons for hating the unions and Thatcher was the only direct challenge to them. I just don't agree with the alternative she offered.

Thats the nature of the beast though isnt it? If its unviable do you continue to pump public money into supporting something that may be better off dying a death. Something has to give and at the time there were also problems with the Steel Industry, Motor Industry, Shipbuilding, Air Transport, Aircraft Building, the list goes on and on.

Protectionist policies that some political and union leaders advocated at the time would have simply drained the national economy, worse than Tony and Gordy have done over the last few years.

At the very least, we would have been self-sufficient and society wouldn't have been put in jeopardy by mass unemployment. Britain's tightly regulated, highly taxed economy should have been somewhat streamlined, not smashed altogether. Would we have become the fourth largest economy in the world (up until recently) if this had happened? Maybe not. Would life in Britain have been better than it has been for the past twenty years? I think so.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

At the very least, we would have been self-sufficient and society wouldn't have been put in jeopardy by mass unemployment. Britain's tightly regulated, highly taxed economy should have been somewhat streamlined, not smashed altogether. Would we have become the fourth largest economy in the world (up until recently) if this had happened? Maybe not. Would life in Britain have been better than it has been for the past twenty years? I think so.

No chance we would ever have been self sufficient, its alright saying if we had kept our pits open with public funds our iron and steel industry would have bought the coal, no they wouldnt, they would still have bought cheaper, more reliable deliveries from germany, even though the coal itself was of a lower quality, it was guarenteed to be there when you wanted it.

Would the British Public have paid for far more expensive electricity, cars etc than cheaper foreign imports. Dont think so. So what could we do, oh we could put an import tax on all foreign goods coming into the UK, in which case everyone else taxes our exports.

While Thatcher's policies werent ideal they were better than Labour's at the time, improving the balance of payments, reducing unemployment eventually and bringing down inflation, which is why Tony Blair used her basic economic model initially when he came to power.

The reason why the recession of the 1980's was so lengthy was because at the start of the decade the pound became a petro currency because of North Sea Oil and its value rose. This meant our exports overseas became more expensive, this in turn reduced demand for british goods, even in the uk market as foreign imports were cheaper, consequently our manufacturing industries suffered.

Long Term unemployment figures started falling mid-80's partly due to massaged figures but also due to a real fall in numbers unemployed. When Labour came to power they were riding on the back of Tory policies for the first 2-3 years. Since then figures have been further massaged. However since the mid 80's the numbers of people in employment has actually risen.