O/T The Price Of Coal 1977 BBC Drama

[rolymiller]

Come on, Roly.

You picketed Hadfields during a dispute with British Steel. You must have thought that justified and acceptable. Surely you can articulate why?

I hope you are not trying to bully me kerr 2 car style (which you completely got wrong) it's not nice.

[KerrAvon]

How can asking how you thought your actions were justified amount to bullying? You are making no sense. Surely, you'd be shouting your justification from the rooftops if you had one

As for Labour being the only party - obviously not - but certainly the one most likely to cause untold damage, with policies such as the seizure of 10% of every decent sized public company.

[KerrAvon]

In summary, is the position this? The Trade Union movement brought workers together and through solidarity obtained improvements in pay, working conditions and safety for their members, but by the 60s and 70s they had become increasingly militant and had taken on a political dimension. And the cost of that was that solidarity was no longer something to be asked for or encouraged - it was something to be imposed through the intimidation of working people, if necessary.

Labour supporters rarely seem to want a talk about the 10% asset seizure. Can't think why...

[Adventus2012]

I blame joining the EU for the downturn in British Industry, Heres what John Redwood MP thinks, it is food for thought and worth a read imo.

How joining the EU led to a big decline in UK industry
By john redwood | Published: June 16, 2016

There are also crucial issues to understand about how the asymmetric single market did damage to Uk industry. When we joined the EEC, now the EU, in 1973, more barriers to trade had been pulled down in manufacturing than in services. EU rules were often such that UK industry was badly damaged by the shock of joining and the continued shock of staying in as the rules increased and tightened.

When the UK joined the EU we had a 45 million tonnes a year steel industry. Today we are battling to save an 11 million tonnes industry.

When we joined the EU we had a 400,000 tonnes a year aluminium industry. Today we have just 43,000 tonnes of capacity left.

When we joined the EU we had 20 million tonnes of cement capacity. Today we have 12 million tonnes.

Just before we joined the EEC in 1971 we had a 1 million tonnes a year fishing industry. Today we have 600,000 tonnes.

The October 2013 government “Future of Manufacturing” Report shows that between 1951 and 1973 metals output rose 3% a year. Since joining the EEC/EU it has declined by more than 6%

Between 1951 and 1973 food and drink output rose by 5.6% per year. Since joining the EEC/EU it has fallen by 1% a year.

Between 1951 and 1973 textiles output expanded at 2.6% a year. Since joining the EEC/EU it has fallen by more than 6% a year.

Whilst it may not be fair to blame all this decline on membership of the EU, as there are other factors, it nonetheless shows categorically that joining the EU and helping create the so called single market has not helped us grow and has not saved many of our industries from decline.

In some cases EU policies are the main driver of the disaster. The Common Fishing Policy is clearly the main reason for the dreadful decline of our fishing industry, as many foreign vessels were licenced to take our fish. Our energy intensive businesses were often damaged by the high energy prices required by the EU common energy policy.

The EU has prevented UK subsidy of industry under its state aids rules, but has often provided subsidised loans and grants to businesses to set up elsewhere in the EU. The UK has seen a spate of factory closures balanced by new and expanded facilities in poorer EU countries. The UK lost van production to Turkey, car capacity to Slovakia, chocolate to Poland, domestic appliances to the Netherlands and the Czech Republic and metal containers to Poland amongst others in recent years. In various cases there was an EU grant or loan involved in the new capacity.

Looking at our huge balance of payments deficit today in goods with the rest of the EU, we can see the long term impact of the EU’s damage to our manufacturing capacity.

This April’s balance of payments figures show us in heavy deficit in machinery, vehicles, electrical machinery, mineral fuels, plastics, iron and steel, wood and clothing. Last year our total goods trade deficit hit £85 billion with the rest of the EU. Between 2008 and 2015 our exports grew at 5% with the rest of the world, whilst falling with the EU.

Perhaps remain might like to answer the following questions:
Why have we suffered industrial decline and closures with production shifting elsewhere in Europe since joining the EEC?
Why do trade in surplus with the rest of the world but have such a huge deficit with the EU?
Why have we ended up importing fish, electricity, steel and much else when we used to be self sufficient?

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

Exactly that, what the f ook do you think we were fighting for, proper jobs, proper wages, not call centres or retail.....ffs how hard is that to understand, don't you get it yet, we could see this happening, it was planned this way, by the "left wing elite" you keep harping on about, how blinkered, (or stupid) do you have to be to not see what was before, and is now????

Calm down Bob. We are about to enter a period of tranquillity and Utopia is on the horizon.

Austerity has ended, the NHS is about to get billions of extra pounds in funding, we will still get tax cuts and the deficit will be reduced....

I'm wondering if the Tories are about to borrow one of Labour's money tree's from Jeremy's allotment....or perhaps there's an election coming next April / May.

Brexit is a busted flush if the Tories don't stop stabbing each other in the back or Labour decide which way they want to vote on the EU....

To top it all Farage is laughing his balls off and telling everyone that will listen that Saint Theresa has to go.....

Don't you just love Politician's

[millmoormagic]

Calm down Bob. We are about to enter a period of tranquillity and Utopia is on the horizon.

Austerity has ended, the NHS is about to get billions of extra pounds in funding, we will still get tax cuts and the deficit will be reduced....

I'm wondering if the Tories are about to borrow one of Labour's money tree's from Jeremy's allotment....or perhaps there's an election coming next April / May.

Brexit is a busted flush if the Tories don't stop stabbing each other in the back or Labour decide which way they want to vote on the EU....

To top it all Farage is laughing his balls off and telling everyone that will listen that Saint Theresa has to go.....

Don't you just love Politician's

Indeed Casper, indeed. (i am calm though!)

[rolymiller]

Its a good life if you can get it Exile...

[KerrAvon]

Your take is, as ever, an error ridden ignorant pro tory biased piece of bull, you have no idea, none whatsoever the feelings before the strike, after the strike, in between the strike, or about people's feelings in general, you're a very linear, sad individual in my opinion.

"Whatever they achieved" wow, what a blase don't give a crap attitude you have, some of the finest people this country has ever produced have been from the trade union and labour movement, with achievements to envy of the world, achievements you and your tory cohorts are steadily stripping away, shame on you, shame on anyone who could possibly vote for the vindictive tory party which has no concern for ordinary folk, none. Working class people voting for them are just like turkeys at xmas.....

Ok, so your brown coal allegation was made up. Would you now like to point out where I wouldn't accept that we have to act now on climate change? I recall trying to explain to Roly several times that we need to act rather than simply make bland statements about ways that we could act. He thought it 'fascist' of me to do so.

I understand that you still have strong feelings about the miners strike, but we are more than thirty years on and we ought to be able to have a rational and objective discussion about it.

Can you tell me where my assessment was error ridden? Can we agree on these basic facts:

1. The constitution of the NUM regulated the relationship between that union and its members. The members paid their subs and we're entitled to the benefits of membership in return.
2. The NUM constitution provided that a national strike could be called only after a secret ballot of the entire membership.
3. No national ballot was held. At the time Scargill said that he wasn't willing to have the fate of threatened pits determined by workers in 'safe' areas. Writing since, Ken Livingstone says that Scargill was scared that the membership might have rejected a national ballot, which may be the same thing.
4. In the absence of a national ballot, the strike was not a national strike, resulting in the absence of the solidarity that was required to turn the lights of.
5. In other words, in the absence of a national ballot, some areas continued to work, making 'victory' impossible.
6. The NUM tried to prevent the miners who chose to work from doing so by arranging extensive picketing - thus setting miner against miner - working man against working man.
7. The picketing failed resulting in the dispute turning into a water of attrition that the strikers could never win but, as animal points out it still ran long after that would have been apparent.
8. Working miners had to take the NUM to court to stop it misapplying funds.

I'm happy to hear an alternative interpretation. For my part, I would simply observe that something had gone badly wrong in a union that denied it's members their rights, set working man against working man and left members needing to take the union to court to prevent their funds from being misappropriated. Who needs Victorian management attitudes and behaviours when a union behaves like that?

[millmoormagic]

Ok, so your brown coal allegation was made up. Would you now like to point out where I wouldn't accept that we have to act now on climate change? I recall trying to explain to Roly several times that we need to act rather than simply make bland statements about ways that we could act. He thought it 'fascist' of me to do so.

I understand that you still have strong feelings about the miners strike, but we are more than thirty years on and we ought to be able to have a rational and objective discussion about it.

Can you tell me where my assessment was error ridden? Can we agree on these basic facts:

1. The constitution of the NUM regulated the relationship between that union and its members. The members paid their subs and we're entitled to the benefits of membership in return.
2. The NUM constitution provided that a national strike could be called only after a secret ballot of the entire membership.
3. No national ballot was held. At the time Scargill said that he wasn't willing to have the fate of threatened pits determined by workers in 'safe' areas. Writing since, Ken Livingstone says that Scargill was scared that the membership might have rejected a national ballot, which may be the same thing.
4. In the absence of a national ballot, the strike was not a national strike, resulting in the absence of the solidarity that was required to turn the lights of.
5. In other words, in the absence of a national ballot, some areas continued to work, making 'victory' impossible.
6. The NUM tried to prevent the miners who chose to work from doing so by arranging extensive picketing - thus setting miner against miner - working man against working man.
7. The picketing failed resulting in the dispute turning into a water of attrition that the strikers could never win but, as animal points out it still ran long after that would have been apparent.
8. Working miners had to take the NUM to court to stop it misapplying funds.

I'm happy to hear an alternative interpretation. For my part, I would simply observe that something had gone badly wrong in a union that denied it's members their rights, set working man against working man and left members needing to take the union to court to prevent their funds from being misappropriated. Who needs Victorian management attitudes and behaviours when a union behaves like that?

Where you're not accepting climate change is where you're still encouraging fracking, profit over planet, you "recall trying to explain to roly several times that we need to act".........acting means stopping fracking at this very moment......we need to act now, you've had your warning from experts but weirdly you still want to frack the country to bits....

You don't understand anything about the miners strike, nothing, your mind is linear, you have no emotion, i feel sorry for you, the years since the strike don't mean i don't feel the exact same injustice that i felt then, just like yesterday for me, you could liken it to your obsession with the 1970's....

You wanna talk about ballots, lets start with a bit of groundwork, when an incentive scheme was introduced in the late 70's the scheme meant that different areas would be paid different rates......something against the very thing most miners understood, solidarity and fairness across the board, fair pay for ALL.
The union national executive rejected it, rightly, but the then leader, a moderate, Joe Gormley(later to be outed as an informant to the gov't) sent it to ballot, one area attempted to stop it, but was knocked back by the judge who stated the national executive might not represent the 'true voice of the members'.....
The scheme was voted on, and was soundly rejected, three areas, always the most moderate, nottinghamshire, south Derbyshire and Leicestershire decided to adopt it anyway.....against the ballot, other areas sought an injunction from the high court to stop them doing so, guess what, that pinnacle of British justice and fairness rejected the case and decided the ballot wasn't binding.....go figure, British, elite justice at it's corrupt best...

That's the background, so, after being thoroughly shafted by the moderate side of the union, and the British justice system, i reckon the faith in the ballot system was a little jaded, don't you think?

Now onto the strike, the union decided to play the same game, and allowed each seperate area to have their own vote, simple as that.

I aint gunna go through each point Kerr what i will say is this, who do you think 'won' the benefits that the miners 'enjoyed', not bad pay, safer conditions than most other country's mines, decent pension arrangement??

It wasn't the Nottinghamshire miners and those from other moderate areas, that's for sure, they rode on the backs of the militant areas, Yorkshire, Scotland, Wales, North east, Kent, who were prepared to sacrifice and fight. Every Yorkshire miner knew what those in Nottinghamshire were like, you see, miners talked about politics, union business, most union meetings were very well attended....How then, do you think those miners felt when those moderates Shat all over them??

Cue the strike, lo and behold, Nottinghamshire votes to work, scabs, shatting all over their mates, condemning the industry to catastrophe, guess where those working miners ended up? exactly the same place as me, what a bunch of wet, lily livered toss pots with no thought for anyone but themselves.

Those shytehouses also condemned the country to the place where we are right now, one which is continuing to strip back those hard won workers rights, where zero hour contracts are rife, where hire and fire is the norm, tragic.

The strike tactics wernt perfect by any stretch, after all how could they be, the strike was manufactured by the gov't, the timing was right, all the plans in place, a police force trained in riot control when it had hardly ever been called for, a secret service tapping phones of union leaders across the board, even local ones.

There you have it, i couldn't give two shytes what you think, or your opinion on what was 'legal' or not, you see, your legal system had already shafted us over thoroughly, so miners hold little faith in it, i still don't, just about as corrupt as they come, but in a very British way....

[rolymiller]

Where you're not accepting climate change is where you're still encouraging fracking, profit over planet, you "recall trying to explain to roly several times that we need to act".........acting means stopping fracking at this very moment......we need to act now, you've had your warning from experts but weirdly you still want to frack the country to bits....

You don't understand anything about the miners strike, nothing, your mind is linear, you have no emotion, i feel sorry for you, the years since the strike don't mean i don't feel the exact same injustice that i felt then, just like yesterday for me, you could liken it to your obsession with the 1970's....

You wanna talk about ballots, lets start with a bit of groundwork, when an incentive scheme was introduced in the late 70's the scheme meant that different areas would be paid different rates......something against the very thing most miners understood, solidarity and fairness across the board, fair pay for ALL.
The union national executive rejected it, rightly, but the then leader, a moderate, Joe Gormley(later to be outed as an informant to the gov't) sent it to ballot, one area attempted to stop it, but was knocked back by the judge who stated the national executive might not represent the 'true voice of the members'.....
The scheme was voted on, and was soundly rejected, three areas, always the most moderate, nottinghamshire, south Derbyshire and Leicestershire decided to adopt it anyway.....against the ballot, other areas sought an injunction from the high court to stop them doing so, guess what, that pinnacle of British justice and fairness rejected the case and decided the ballot wasn't binding.....go figure, British, elite justice at it's corrupt best...

That's the background, so, after being thoroughly shafted by the moderate side of the union, and the British justice system, i reckon the faith in the ballot system was a little jaded, don't you think?

Now onto the strike, the union decided to play the same game, and allowed each seperate area to have their own vote, simple as that.

I aint gunna go through each point Kerr what i will say is this, who do you think 'won' the benefits that the miners 'enjoyed', not bad pay, safer conditions than most other country's mines, decent pension arrangement??

It wasn't the Nottinghamshire miners and those from other moderate areas, that's for sure, they rode on the backs of the militant areas, Yorkshire, Scotland, Wales, North east, Kent, who were prepared to sacrifice and fight. Every Yorkshire miner knew what those in Nottinghamshire were like, you see, miners talked about politics, union business, most union meetings were very well attended....How then, do you think those miners felt when those moderates Shat all over them??

Cue the strike, lo and behold, Nottinghamshire votes to work, scabs, shatting all over their mates, condemning the industry to catastrophe, guess where those working miners ended up? exactly the same place as me, what a bunch of wet, lily livered toss pots with no thought for anyone but themselves.

Those shytehouses also condemned the country to the place where we are right now, one which is continuing to strip back those hard won workers rights, where zero hour contracts are rife, where hire and fire is the norm, tragic.

The strike tactics wernt perfect by any stretch, after all how could they be, the strike was manufactured by the gov't, the timing was right, all the plans in place, a police force trained in riot control when it had hardly ever been called for, a secret service tapping phones of union leaders across the board, even local ones.

There you have it, i couldn't give two shytes what you think, or your opinion on what was 'legal' or not, you see, your legal system had already shafted us over thoroughly, so miners hold little faith in it, i still don't, just about as corrupt as they come, but in a very British way....

He's already implied to me on another thread that the judicial system is dodgy quickly skimming over it in the process. A bit worrying IF
he works in that trade. Maybe he should whistle blow...

http://boards.footymad.net/showthrea...8229985&page=4

post 69

I would think that this is only the tip of the iceberg and needs exposing. Kerr would be ideal because he 'll probably know first hand just how corrupt our legal system is. As he says to me on the environmental degradation issue "do summat about it now" well that can be his baby.