Looks like your memory is the one that's a tad clouded. There were as many swivelled eyed loons in the tory party back then as there are today and Thatcher was chief amongst them. Did Scargill ask for 20 pits to be closed, or did the nutters running the country at the time decide the enemy within needed eradicating?

Scargill may have been wrong in the way he prosecuted the strike but he was certainly right about the hidden agenda and what would be the long term outcome.

What don't you understand about the killing of him was wrong?
They were justifiably given life sentences for their actions.

Which were reduced to 8 years when the conviction for murder was replaced with one for manslaughter.

And?



No it didn't. The government lost an election. Was industrial unrest and how they failed to deal with it a factor in their defeat? Probably so but had they been seen as in the right they would have won another mandate to govern which they didn't.

The electorate via the democratic process of an election "brought down" that government.

It is no different to Labour having its credibility dented because the 2008 crash happened on their watch and going on to lose the election in 2010. It was a contributory factor in their defeat but only a nutter would suggest they were "brought down" by the bankers.

Governments are judged by the electorate on how they deal with whatever crisis they face and in both 1974 and 2008 the electorate decided they didn't deal with the crisis they faced well enough to win another term.

The phrase "brought down" is pure hyperbole.



I am sure many of the bankers that caused the 2008 crash have political views far to the right of even the last Labour government. Does that make then guilty of acting politically as well as incompetently (and I mean in general not just over the crash)?

Scargill was a political activist that is a world away from the actions of the incompetent bankers. His whole career has been about industrial and political agitation both inside the NUM and the wider trades union movement. His tirade against McGregor was but one example. There were no bankers with anything like the same political agenda.

We must agree to differ on what brought the Heath government down - union action destroyed Heath's government as it did Callaghan's 5 years later.

The difference is pretty obvious the TUC wanted a change of government - Jones/Scanlon/Gormley knew if they could get Heath out and Wilson in they could right their own pay check - and so it proved. It was in their interest to prolong the strike for political change. Even you can't compare that to actions of a number of idiot bankers

To suggest a freeze when figures clearly show that some haven't is utter nonsense, no matter how you choose to say it's inline with something else like inflation.

I went back to London in 2011 because my mum had a stroke. I though how brilliant it was to see these boards. So I'm guessing taking them down is part of the cost cutting that "allows" the alleged freeze. ie annoying. I noticed there were a load more buses and transport seemed a lot better than it was for 40 years before. Most of that would be thanks to "Red" Ken, not Boris. But on my trip back this Sept/Oct I did see all these bikes called Boris Bikes. They were even on my estate where my mum and dad still live. I couldn't believe it. That's a handy option.

I am so impressed by that Oyster Card system and have it here, knowing that when I go back, I just need to add a few quid to it. Sydney is only now trying to catch up with other first world cities.

The bankers were anything other than "incompetent" or "idiots". They may not have been motivated by politics but they certainly were motivated by greed, devising ever more complicated financial "instruments" that even their peers didn't understand. They engaged on a systematic programme of fraud, whether that be by fixing interest rates or camouflaging toxic "assets" in order to reap a profit. That is what unfettered capitalism encourages and when it all goes wrong, it is the state that has to pick up the pieces. Privatise the profit, socialise the debt - a cycle that will continue unless radical changes are made.

I agree with the first part but the second part I don't - the world has tried socialising the profit and it didn't work. Without the incentive of profit countries struggle to generate wealth. China has only seen an economic boom since it introduced a significant element of capitalism.

The banking crisis was unique - you had a group of people who could act with impunity - they knew whatever happened nobody was going to let them go bust. That is not the case for virtually every other business. In the socialist model if the industry generated deficits who picks up the bill?

Capitalism is not perfect but what is the alternative?

The three young children killed scavenging for coal to warm their parents freezing homes.

We still remember.

Did you vent your anger on Scargill?

Spare us the crocodile tears.

It is a fact that striking miners continued to receive their full allocation of free coal/anthracite beans throughout the strike. All of which was delivered in bulk through picket lines with the full co-operation of the area headquarters at Barnsley, before being delivered locally by the usual contracted coalmen!

And in my local pub, several times Union Reps came in and tried in vain to get striking miners to join in the picketing. Their lack of response was down to most of them signing up with agencies and taking whatever part/full time work there was going. In fact, more than a few never went back underground at all.

Solidarity my Comrade!

No.
Why should I do that when he was telling the truth?

Quote: WIZEB "No. Why should I do that when he was telling the truth?'" ,Cos he called a strike without a ballot and caused the hardship endured by strikers families. Many were always going to lose their jobs so it would have been better for families to have had time to plan for a new future whilst working than to endure hardship. If you thought the NUM of Scargill amd Mad Mick was the way to go, under free movement you could go to France: www.cityam.com/article/138905909 ... g-tragedy# Au revoir.

Quote: WIZEB "No. Why should I do that when he was telling the truth?'" ,Cos he called a strike without a ballot and caused the hardship endured by strikers families. Many were always going to lose their jobs so it would have been better for families to have had time to plan for a new future whilst working than to endure hardship. If you thought the NUM of Scargill amd Mad Mick was the way to go, under free movement you could go to France: www.cityam.com/article/138905909 ... g-tragedy# Au revoir.

Really? They may not shout it from the rooftops but they have their vested interests as much at their side as Scargill did.

In any case the point is whatever the unions did its how government reacted to it that determined their fate.



Many miners lost their jobs under Wilson. 43% of them in fact (of a much larger industry). That is writing your own pay check is it?

They key difference between the two eras is back in Wilson's time the miners accepted pits could close and that they could either move elsewhere in the industry or if not that the economy supported other suitable jobs for them to go to.

In Thatchers time neither of those points applied. Scargill believed Thatcher wanted to destroy the industry not just close 20 pits so there was no alternative employment going to exist within coal mining. And the economy was nothing like as strong as under Wilson and there just weren't the jobs outside the industry to go to.

For these reasons I don't blame Scargill for fighting tooth and nail against what he has been proven right was the plan all along. I thought at the time he was an idiot calling a strike when coal stocks were high and at the wrong time of year but his failings as a leader don't alter that now the truth is out he knew what was coming.