Skip to content or view screen version

Recent media coverage of 1984 miners strike

Mick Hall | 09.03.2009 12:32 | History | Repression | Workers' Movements | Sheffield

Former Euro-communist Martin Jacques, with an article in The Guardian,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/06/miners-strike-1984-85-margaretthatcher , has joined a long line of media commentators who have used the 25th anniversary of the start of the 1984 miners strike to pour excreta over Arthur Scargill. With their demonization of Scargill it is difficult not to conclude the media’s main aim is to re-write the history of the strike. Reading these articles you will need to look hard to find a condemnation of Thatcher, or the then LP leader Neil Kinnock's disgraceful betrayal of trade unionists in struggle.

Lesley Boulton at Orgreave © John Harris
Lesley Boulton at Orgreave © John Harris


In 1981, in a democratic ballot, the miners elected Scargill as NUM leader, and from that day Kinnock and other minnows in the LP leadership did all they could to undermine that trade union. They did not give a toss about the miners, they were playing political games so they could maintain their positions and change the LP constitution.

Kinnock’s behavior during the miners strike reminded me of a radio message Tito sent to Stalin during WW2, “If you cannot help us please do not hinder us."

Little ‘Lord’ Kinnock who built his career on the backs of Welsh miners, in the latter part of the strike became what amounted to being Thatchers tormentor of the NUM. He toured the TV studios and editorial offices condemning Scargill for not calling a ballot, when in reality he was well aware it was far to late for that; and that his behavior could only undermine the strike.

Yes, Scargill and his fellow NUM leaders made mistakes, for christ sake who wouldn't have, they were up against the massed ranks of the British State machine and all its agencies, including the police and security services. Even Arthur’s political assistant turned out to be an MI5 tout, who knows what poison he whispered into the NUM leaderships ears. That he was in place at the start of the strike shows how far in advance the bastards planned to destroy the NUM.

The behavior of the police during the miners strike was a national disgrace, they trampled over the democratic rights of the miners and their supporters; and drove a coach and horses through the rule of law. The behavior of Metropolitan police during the strike would have made the Stasi proud, as at times they behaved like a band of Nazi thugs. But hey our gallant 21st century commentators have little or nothing to say on this.

When armchair generals and back sliders like Martin Jacques speak out; their only avenue of attack is Arthur, What I find so dispiriting about this bash Arthur take is its total dishonesty. It portrays the striking miners as if they did not have minds of their own, that they would not have thought long and hard about the consequences of going out the gate. The majority of the striking miners had families to feed and for any journalist to suggest they stayed out on strike for 12 months to boost the ego of a trade union leader is insulting in the extreme.

If there had been a viable way to settle this dispute the NUM would have grabbed it with both hands, but whenever a settlement appeared on the horizon, Thatcher vetoed it. She and her City backers were determined to destroy the NUM and with it Britain’s coal mining industry and much of its industrial base. For between them, they were determined that Britain would become Liechtenstein on the Thames and zoot suited bankers and financiers were to rule the roost.

Big issues were involved here, and I find it very interesting that none of the critics of Scargill wish to engage in debate about what lay behind the strike and the consequences that came from Thatchers victory, for both the country and the mining communities.

At a time when the results of Thatcherism are becoming obvious to all, do these wretched scribes give a thought as to why big media is giving such coverage to the anniversary of the strike? No, they attack those workers who were amongst the first to resist Neo-liberal economics. and in the process they side with those who have created a massive underclass and brought the country close to bankruptcy.

Tens of thousands of miners fought tooth and nail in defense of their jobs and communities, do commentators like Mr Jacques show them some respect and take their hat off to them, no. They once again go poking around the underbelly of the NUM, but have not a word to say about the role of Thatcher, Kinnock, the City, the media and police, let alone the leeches who moved in on those mining communities after the strike was lost.

Shame on them, shame on them all.

Mick Hall
- Homepage: http://www.organizedrage.com/2009/03/recent-media-coverage-of-1984-miners.html

Additions

'We could surrender - or stand and fight'

09.03.2009 13:06



Twenty-five years ago, the Tory government led by Margaret Thatcher declared war on the National Union of Mineworkers. The Tories had been preparing for a showdown with the NUM since before the 1979 general election. They could not forget the victorious miners' strikes of 1972 and 1974, the second of which had brought down the Tory government in a general election.

But the NUM's historic battle did not begin in March 1984, as so many pundits claim. The seeds of the dispute had been sown long before. A pit closure plan in 1981 resulted in miners, including miners in Nottinghamshire, taking unofficial strike action (without a ballot) and forcing Thatcher into a U-turn, or in reality a body swerve.

At that time, Britain's coal industry was the most efficient and technologically advanced in the world, a result of a tripartite agreement, the Plan For Coal, signed by a Labour government, the National Coal Board (NCB) and the mining trade unions in 1974, and endorsed by Thatcher in 1981. And yet, shortly after I became national president of the NUM in 1982 I was sent anonymously a copy of a secret plan prepared by NCB chiefs earmarking 95 pits for closure, with the loss of 100,000 miners' jobs. This plan had been prepared on government instructions following the miners' successful unofficial strike in 1981.

I took this document to the union's National Executive Committee (NEC) - its contents were not only denied by government and NCB chiefs, but were disbelieved by militant NUM leaders who had been assured that their pits had long-term futures. However, the exposed revelations struck a chord among our members throughout Britain's coalfields where colliery managers - clearly acting on instructions from above - had already begun unilaterally changing agreed working practices, affecting shift patterns and supplementary payments.

It became clear that the union would have to take action, but of a type that would win maximum support and have a unifying effect. The NEC accepted a report from me recommending that we call a special national delegate conference, and link our opposition to the pit closure plan with a demand that the coal board negotiate the union's wage claim. The NEC agreed, and the special conference was held on 21 October 1983. Delegates from all NUM areas were given a detailed report so that they could vote on what action - if any - should be taken. Following a full debate, they agreed to call a national overtime ban from 1 November - until such time as the NCB withdrew its closure plan and agreed to negotiate an increase in miners' wages with the NUM.

Over the next four months, the overtime ban had an extraordinary impact. It succeeded in reducing coal output by 30%, or 12m tonnes, thus cutting national coal stocks to about the same level as they had been during the miners' unofficial strike in 1981.

Then, on 1 March 1984, acting I believe on national instruction, NCB directors in four areas announced the immediate closure of five pits: Cortonwood and Bullcliffe Wood in Yorkshire, Herrington in Durham, Snowdown in Kent and Polmaise in Scotland.

Coalfield reaction was electrifying. On Saturday 3 March, accompanied by the NUM Yorkshire president, Jack Taylor, I spoke at a packed meeting in South Yorkshire initially organised to discuss various issues that had already brought seven Yorkshire pits out on strike. I knew we had to do everything possible to persuade our members to direct their rage in a united way at the pit closure plan and its threat to butcher our industry.

On Sunday evening Taylor and I attended a Yorkshire Brass Band Festival in Sheffield city hall. By then I had consulted my fellow national officials, the vice-president, Michael McGahey, and the national secretary, Peter Heathfield.

It was essential to present a united response to the NCB and we agreed that, if the coal board planned to force pit closures on an area by area basis, then we must respond at least initially on that same basis. The NUM's rules permitted areas to take official strike action if authorised by our national executive committee in accordance with Rule 41. If the NEC gave Scotland and Yorkshire authorisation under this rule, it could galvanise other areas to seek similar support for action against closures.

During an interval in the concert, I used the back of a programme to draft a strike resolution which I asked Taylor to present the following morning to the Yorkshire area council meeting. I told him that McGahey would be doing the same thing at the same time in Scotland.

On 6 March, at a consultative meeting at NCB London headquarters, the coal board chairman, Ian MacGregor, not only confirmed what we had been expecting, but announced that in addition to the five pits already earmarked for immediate closure, a further 20 would be closed during the coming year, with the loss of more than 20,000 jobs. This, he said, was being done to take four million tonnes of "unwanted" capacity out of the industry, and bring supply into line with demand.

The Scotland and Yorkshire NUM areas did vote to seek endorsement from the NEC for strike action, and at the NEC meeting on 8 March were given authorisation under Rule 41. South Wales and Kent then also asked for authorisation. The NEC agreed, and confirmed that other areas could, if they wished, do the same. We realised that the NCB announcement on 6 March had amounted to a declaration of war. We could either surrender right now, or stand and fight.

A question that has been raised time and time again over the past 25 years is: why did the union not hold a national strike ballot? Those who attack our struggle by vilifying me usually say: "Scargill rejected calls for a ballot."

The real reason that NUM areas such as Nottinghamshire, South Derbyshire and Leicestershire wanted a national strike ballot was that they wanted the strike called off, believing naively that their pits were safe.

Three years earlier, in 1981, there had been no ballot when miners' unofficial strike action - involving Notts miners - had caused Thatcher to retreat from mass closures (nor in 1972 when more than a million workers went on strike in support of the Pentonville Five dockers who had been jailed for defying government anti-union legislation).

McGahey argued that the union should not be "constitutionalised" out of taking action, while the South Wales area president, Emlyn Williams, told the NEC on 12 April 1984: "To hide behind a ballot is an act of cowardice. I tell you this now ... decide what you like about a ballot but our coalfield will be on strike and stay on strike."

However, NUM areas had a right to ask the NEC to convene a special national delegate conference (as we had when calling the overtime ban) to determine whether delegates mandated by their areas should vote for a national individual ballot or reaffirm the decision of the NEC to permit areas such as Scotland, Yorkshire, South Wales and Kent to take strike action in accordance with Rule 41.

Our special conference was held on 19 April. McGahey, Heathfield and I were aware from feedback that a slight majority of areas favoured the demand for a national strike ballot; therefore, we were expecting and had prepared for that course of action with posters, ballot papers and leaflets. A major campaign was ready to go for a "Yes" vote in a national strike ballot.

At the conference, Heathfield told delegates in his opening address: "I hope that we are sincere and honest enough to recognise that a ballot should not be used and exercised as a veto to prevent people in other areas defending their jobs." His succinct reminder of the situation we were in opened up an emotional debate to which speaker after speaker made passionate and fiercely argued contributions.

Replying to that debate, I said: "This battle is certainly about more than the miners' union. It is for the right to work. It is for the right to preserve our pits. It is for the right to preserve this industry ... We can all make speeches, but at the end of the day we have got to stand up and be counted ... We have got to come out and say not only what we feel should be done, but do it because if we don't do that, then we fail."

McGahey, Heathfield and I had done the arithmetic beforehand, and were truly surprised that when the vote was taken, delegates rejected calls for a national strike ballot and decided instead to call on all miners to refuse to cross picket lines - and join the 140,000 already on strike. We later learned that members of one area delegation had been so moved by the arguments put forward in the debate that they'd held an impromptu meeting and switched their vote in support of the area strikes in accordance with Rule 41.

During the strike I was also criticised, indeed attacked - by my own colleagues - for arguing that the NUM's prime picketing targets should be power stations, ports, cement works, steelworks and coking plants. But evidence now available shows my argument was correct.

My passionate conviction that the Orgreave coking plant in South Yorkshire should be selected as a main target was rubbished at the time. Yet, it has now been revealed from official sources that show coal stocks at steel plants - particularly Scunthorpe in Yorkshire, Ravenscraig in Scotland and Llanwern in Wales - were so low that these works could only continue in production for a matter of weeks, with Scunthorpe - where British Steel had already laid off 160 workers due to coal shortages - actually earmarked for closure by 18 June 1984.

The issue of dispensations that would allow provision of coal supplies created divisions among the most militant sections of the NUM. I had argued passionately that there should be no dispensations for power stations, cement works, steelworks or coking plants, whose coal stocks were extremely low.

Many on the union's left - particularly those in the Communist party - argued that the union had a responsibility to ensure that a minimal amount of coal could be delivered in order to keep the giant furnaces and ovens "ticking over". Heathfield and a number of others on the NUM left agreed with me that there should be no dispensations and that if steelworks had to close down, as British Steel's chairman, Bob Haslam, warned was inevitable, then the responsibility lay firmly at the door of the government, not the NUM.

Despite the passionate arguments made by Heathfield and myself, areas did give dispensations. Two months went by before it dawned on Yorkshire, South Wales and Scotland that they had been outmanoeuvred by British Steel, and the leadership of the steelworkers' union, and that British Steel was moving far more coal than the dispensations agreed with NUM areas. Yet there was still time to stop all those giant steelworks, and if the steelworkers' union would not cooperate with the NUM to stop all deliveries of coal to the steelworks then the National Union of Seamen and rail unions Aslef and NUR had already demonstrated that they would stop all deliveries.

The scene was set for the battle of Orgreave.

Orgreave coking plant was a crucial target for mass picketing. I knew that its coal supplies could be cut off as had been the case at the Saltley coke depot in Birmingham in 1972 - a turning point after which that strike was soon settled.

Contrary to popular mythology, Orgreave was closed twice: first on 27 May 1984, when together with dozens of others I was injured on the picket line. Second, on 18 June, when 10,000 pickets faced 8,500 riot police in a scene reminiscent of a battle in England's 17th-century civil war.

So fierce was the conflict on 18 June that dozens of pickets were hospitalised (including me), but the picketing resulted in British Steel's chairman sending a telex closing down Orgreave on a temporary basis - exactly as had been the case at Saltley coke depot in Birmingham 12 years before.

The fundamental difference between Saltley in 1972 and Orgreave in 1984 was that in 1972 following the first closure at Saltley, picketing on my demand was increased the following day - while at Orgreave, on 19 June 1984, the pickets were completely withdrawn by the NUM Yorkshire and Derbyshire areas and other coalfield leaders, despite my desperate urging that picketing be stepped up.

Had picketing at Orgreave been increased the day after 18 June, I have no doubt that Orgreave - and Scunthorpe - would have faced immediate closure, forcing the government to settle the strike.

For 25 years, I have been accused of refusing to negotiate a settlement with the NCB, and of "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" - a blatant lie. The NUM settled the strike on five separate occasions in 1984: on 8 June, 8 July, 18 July, 10 September, and 12 October. The first four settlements were sabotaged or withdrawn following the intervention of Thatcher.

The most important settlement terms were agreed between leaders of the pit deputies' union Nacods and the NUM at the offices of the conciliation service Acas on 12 October 1984 and included a demand that the NCB withdraw its pit closure plan, give an undertaking that the five collieries earmarked for immediate closure would be kept open, and guarantee that no pit would be closed unless by joint agreement it was deemed to be exhausted or unsafe.

Nacods members had recorded an 82% ballot vote for strike action, and their leaders made clear to the NCB that unless the Nacods-NUM terms were accepted, the Nacods strike would go ahead.

I was later told by a Tory who had been a minister at the time that when Thatcher was informed of the Nacods-NUM agreement she announced to the cabinet "special committee" that the government had no choice but to settle the strike on the unions' terms.

However, when she learned that Nacods - despite pleas from the TUC and the NUM - had called off their strike and accepted a "modified" colliery review procedure, she immediately withdrew the government's decision to settle. Nacods' inexplicable decision led to the closure of 164 pits and the loss of 160,000 jobs.

The monumental betrayal by Nacods has never been explained in a way that makes sense. Even the TUC recognised that the Nacods settlement was a disaster.

The fact that Nacods leaders ignored pleas from the NUM and TUC not to call off their strike or resile from their agreement with the NUM not only adds mystery but poses the question - whose hand did the moving, and why?

Over the years, I have repeatedly said that we didn't "come close" to total victory in October 1984 - we had it, and at the very point of victory we were betrayed. Only the Nacods leaders know why.

A full account of the strike of 1984/85 is still to be written. However, we have learned more and more about the then Labour party leader, Neil Kinnock's treachery, the betrayals by the TUC and the class collaboration of union leaders such as Eric Hammond (the electricians' EETPU) and John Lyons (Engineers and Managers Association), who instructed their members to cross picket lines and did all they could to defeat the miners.

We have also seen how many who, like Kinnock, bleated constantly about the need for a ballot during the miners' strike didn't call for the British people to have a ballot in 2003 when Tony Blair took the nation into an unlawful war and the occupation of Iraq.

During the past 25 years, many who have attacked the NUM, and me, about the need for a ballot, or argued that we selected the wrong targets have done so to cover their own guilt at failing to give the miners a level of support that would have stopped the Tories' pit closure programme and thus changed the political direction of the nation. Britain in 1984 was already a divided and degraded society - it has become much more so in the 25 years since.

The NUM's struggle remains not only an inspiration for workers but a warning to today's union leaders of their responsibility to their members, and the need to challenge both government and employers over all forms of injustice, inequality and exploitation.

That is the legacy of the NUM's strike of 1984/85, a truly historic fight that gave birth to the magnificent Women Against Pit Closures and the miners' support groups. I have always said that the greatest victory in the strike was the struggle itself, a struggle that inspired millions of people around the world.

• On 12 March, at 7.30pm, Arthur Scargill will be speaking on the lessons of the 1984/85 miners' strike at the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, WC1

Arthur Scargill
- Homepage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/07/arthur-scargill-miners-strike


Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

Dark forces?

09.03.2009 14:42

A question for those who have posted on this subject. What part did the security services play in the proceedings?

I have always been under the impression that the people who tried to destabilise Harold Wilson's government were actively involved in dirty tricks against the miners and their families.

We know that these people were involved in assisting the Thatcher government with many "dirty tricks" elsewhere. What evidence is there that they acted against the miners?

Siobhan


Roger Winsor, MI5, Lybia etc etc...

09.03.2009 15:15

Siobhan -- where to start!? Perhaps read these articles first...

"The Enemy Within: MI5, Maxwell and the Scargill Affair
Seamus Milne
Verso hbk, 336 pgs, £17.99
Review by Gerald Houghton (1995)

It was the summer of 1984 when the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared to a gathering of the faithful that "We had to fight an enemy without in the Falklands," and that now they were to tackle "the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight, and more dangerous to liberty."

The Enemy Within is not a book about the 1984-5 Miners' Strike. Guardian journalist Milne's task here is altogether darker than that and begins in earnest many years after the end of the dispute, when the dire predictions of NUM leader Arthur Scargill had all but come to pass. On 5 March 1990 the Daily Mirror launched a broadside against the leaders of the union, backed by that evening's Cook Report on ITV, charging that not only had monies been received during the year long dispute from Colonel Gaddafi scant months after a British policewoman had been shot in London, but that the cash had subsequently been used not to ease the hardship of strikers but to pay off the mortgages of officials.

The story was nonsense. Much of the first section of Milne's book exhaustively seeks the truth of the Libyan money -- and that sent by Soviet miners -- and the debts of the alleged embezzlers. (Scargill and deputy Peter Heathfield didn't even have mortgages). It takes a long time to disprove the lies, certainly more than the meagre newspages it took to establish them, but it is important that Milne present the what if he is ever to reach the why and, crucially, the who.

Towards the end of 1984, later admitted by Government ministers and even Thatcher herself, the NUM were close to winning. And this, of course, would hardly have been the first time. Heath had been brought down in the seventies by similar means, and this Prime Minister was not about to let something similar happen. This was revenge as much as war.

The meat of Milne's book is built on tracing the methods by which the machinery of the secret state was brought into play to help defeat a legitimate political action. Stella Rimington, now head of MI5, cut her teeth heading up the section directly responsible for policing the dispute. Phones were tapped, GCHQ deployed, buildings bugged, bundles of supposed Libyan cash faked; the full Cold War handbook. But the heart of Milne's story is darker still -- that the man who largely substantiated the allegations so lauded by the Mirror was in fact an MI5 plant. Roger Windsor, living in France and refusing to talk to Milne, was at the time the highest ranking non-elected official in the NUM and yet is revealed as a double-dealing security service agent positioned to destabilise the dispute, and, after, act as chief witness in the prosecution of Arthur Scargill.

The sheer size and complexity (admirably handled) of this tale takes some following as Milne journeys far from the homes of miners striking to safeguard their futures and across the world to Russia and even inside the tent of Colonel Gaddafi himself; a tale noticeably absent from the same front pages that were so eager to carry the original allegations. But it is also a story, cutting as it does deep into the very fabric of concepts like freedom, democracy and accountability, that needs telling again and again. What it leaves untold, of course, is what is left, that which even the tenacious Milne has yet to uncover. Be afraid. Be very afraid."

 http://www.theedge.abelgratis.co.uk/booksnonf/enemywithin.htm

"There is a hidden story of the miner’s strike of 1984-5, and particularly of what happened six years later. On 5 March 1990 the Daily Mirror published a front-page attack against the leaders of the miners’ union, backed by an investigative programme on TV the same night, claiming that not only had money been received during the year long dispute from the Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi, at the time reviled as a sponsor of terrorism, but that the cash had subsequently been used not to ease the hardship of strikers but to pay off the mortgages of officials. The leaders of the union, in particular Arthur Scargill, were vilified and disgraced.

Within a short space of time, after vigorous investigation and campaigning by the few groups on the left who stood by Scargill, the Mirror’s story was revealed to be a complete fabrication. Neither of the officials in question even had mortgages. A subsequent inquiry into the Union’s affairs cleared them of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

Seamus Milne’s book set out to discover who was behind the fake story, and came up with some astonishing revelations if its own.

The union official who instigated the fund-raising trip to Libya was the Chief Executive, Roger Windsor. He had his photograph taken with Gaddafi; its publication in the newspapers, at a time when, as Thatcher later admitted, it looked as though the miners might actually win the strike, can’t have done wonders for their cause.

At the time he was the highest non-elected official at the NUM. He was ideally placed, then, to provide the Daily Mirror with evidence against Scargill six years later; for which the newspaper paid him the sum of £80,000.

Following evidence provided by the Labour MP Tam Dalyell, Seamus Milne looked into the links between Roger Windsor and the British secret services and found that the man behind the allegations, the man who had tried to smear and discredit Scargill, the NUM and by extension the entire Labour movement, had in fact been working all along for MI5.

It is quite possible that if had not been for the damaging impact of the Mirror's allegations, the Tories would not have been able to push through the mass pit closures they would announce two years later. A certain amount of mud stuck, and the prominence that the newspapers gave to their retractions of the story did not, of course, match in any sense the publicity that the lying revelations had received. It would be twelve years before the Mirror’s editor would make a public apology for his actions."

 http://rwillmsen.livejournal.com/31493.html

"The NUM headquarters in Sheffield and the offices and homes of branch officials were bugged. Transcripts from these taps were sent to the National Reporting Centre at New Scotland Yard, which was responsible for deploying police officers in the coalfields, and to MI5's F2 Branch. MI5 sent intelligence reports to the Civil Contingencies Unit in the Cabinet Office. Undercover police and MI5 operatives masqueraded as miners during the strike, singling out miners for arrest or acting as agents provocateurs to provoke violent incidents. In June 1984, two plain-clothes policemen were caught red-handed in disguise at the Creswell Strike Centre in Derbyshire. Throughout the year-long dispute, the security services leased the building opposite the NUM's headquarters at St. James's House in Sheffield. Every single NUM branch and lodge secretary had their phones monitored, as well as sympathetic support group activists and trade unionists across the country. "

 http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/january03_index.php?l=5⊂=5#idiot

Anon


Re: dark forces

09.03.2009 16:20

David Hart was Thatcher's chief enforcer during the miners' strike, handing out money to strike
breakers from a suite at Claridges
Ref:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/equatorialguinea/story/0,15013,1291456,00.html

Emphasing that Hart is within the heart of the establishment, he was also part of the failed coup plot which had planned an audacious coup in Equatorial Guinea in 2004, involving Mark Thatcher.
Ref:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LegacyofColonialism/message/1316

Mark


Thanks for the information.

10.03.2009 10:48

Thank you to Anon and Mark for the details on the involvement of the security services in all the sinister activities that surrounded the miners' strike.

It seems that these bodies and people are still acting in the interests of the ruling class and establishment, now more so than ever. We have the "war on terror" in place of the "threat" posed by the working class and the unions.

Siobhan