Part in decline

ALLAN Morris’recent tirade does beggar belief. Anybody who has any interest in politics will be aware that most of what he comments about has been in the public domain for many years and could have been picked in newspaper articles and the proliferation of political biographies of recent years.

Industrial decline in our country had already started pre-Thatcher and I would say she was a tripartite member along with poor management and unions who helped speed the process.

Too many of the trade unions of that era had leaders who used their positions to push their own political philosophies which were often at odds with their members. They often pursued wage claims without any consideration of the impact it would have on their working class colleagues in other industries and turned a blind eye to overmanning and restrictive practices.

Scargill himself was as cunning and deceitful as Thatcher in the timing of strikes and his manipulation of union’s rules to avoid strike ballots. The decline in employment north of Risca and Cwmbran is shameful and the miners, steelworkers etc of those areas were badly let down. The reason we have so much unemployment and lack of industry now is down to the fact that government, industry and unions of that time spent too much time thinking about themselves and not the needs of the country. If the Labour party and trade unions are to retain credibility and grow in the future they must acknowledge the part that they played in our decline and not push it all at Thatcher.

S. P. Noble Heather Court Cwmbran

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:53pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Banjalucka says...

Some good points but Alan Morris did not concentrate on that issue. He was referring to the laxk of jobs and such for the school leavers and young. He may have, in a less than subtle way, tried to score political points, but has you said this Thatcher stuff is past its sell-by-date for blame. When in power Labour didn't return the industries but plunged into big nonsence with Blair and New Labour.
Some good points but Alan Morris did not concentrate on that issue. He was referring to the laxk of jobs and such for the school leavers and young. He may have, in a less than subtle way, tried to score political points, but has you said this Thatcher stuff is past its sell-by-date for blame. When in power Labour didn't return the industries but plunged into big nonsence with Blair and New Labour. Banjalucka

5:53pm Tue 21 Jan 14

endthelies says...

It still remains though that it was Maggie's actions of closing down our industries to satisfy her aim to annihilate the unions that is the root cause of the problems faced by many towns all over Britain. She closed the industries and then left the communities to rot, as have the following governments. Sorry but that is the way it is and no matter how much you try, you cannot deny that that was her purpose in closing the pits and other industries.
It still remains though that it was Maggie's actions of closing down our industries to satisfy her aim to annihilate the unions that is the root cause of the problems faced by many towns all over Britain. She closed the industries and then left the communities to rot, as have the following governments. Sorry but that is the way it is and no matter how much you try, you cannot deny that that was her purpose in closing the pits and other industries. endthelies

6:11pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Banjalucka says...

Endthelies
I am not saying anything on this except that the Unions didn't help themselves. I remember a few years before Thatcher the swaggering and conceit their leaders showed, and this ran down to the perceived self-importance of union reps. And, i repeat. New Labour made things worse. Why didn't they return control instead of privatising more? Gas ,Leckie, Water all raking it in.
Endthelies I am not saying anything on this except that the Unions didn't help themselves. I remember a few years before Thatcher the swaggering and conceit their leaders showed, and this ran down to the perceived self-importance of union reps. And, i repeat. New Labour made things worse. Why didn't they return control instead of privatising more? Gas ,Leckie, Water all raking it in. Banjalucka

6:17pm Tue 21 Jan 14

endthelies says...

I'm not saying I don't agree with you because as I said, both labour and conservative have not done enough to help build the communities back up, my point is, it was Maggie's actions that brought these communities to their knees in the first place.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you because as I said, both labour and conservative have not done enough to help build the communities back up, my point is, it was Maggie's actions that brought these communities to their knees in the first place. endthelies

9:36pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Banjalucka says...

endthelies
Or the other way round!!Was it not the arrogance of the unions which started it and had been acting like demi-Gods for decades. I am not a Thatcher lover, but i think you need to balance this out.
endthelies Or the other way round!!Was it not the arrogance of the unions which started it and had been acting like demi-Gods for decades. I am not a Thatcher lover, but i think you need to balance this out. Banjalucka

7:38am Wed 22 Jan 14

Stevenboy says...

endthelies wrote:
It still remains though that it was Maggie's actions of closing down our industries to satisfy her aim to annihilate the unions that is the root cause of the problems faced by many towns all over Britain. She closed the industries and then left the communities to rot, as have the following governments. Sorry but that is the way it is and no matter how much you try, you cannot deny that that was her purpose in closing the pits and other industries.
The unions weren't 'annihilated', their continued existence proves that. What she rid us of was injustices like closed shops where, a union could veto the recruitment or continued employment of an individual regardless of that person's ability or employer's wishes. Why should it have been legal for a union to call a strike without balloting its members who would lose pay? Why was secondary action legal or desirable, or fair even? What she achieved was to place unions on a democratic, fair and legal footing. Nothing else.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: It still remains though that it was Maggie's actions of closing down our industries to satisfy her aim to annihilate the unions that is the root cause of the problems faced by many towns all over Britain. She closed the industries and then left the communities to rot, as have the following governments. Sorry but that is the way it is and no matter how much you try, you cannot deny that that was her purpose in closing the pits and other industries.[/p][/quote]The unions weren't 'annihilated', their continued existence proves that. What she rid us of was injustices like closed shops where, a union could veto the recruitment or continued employment of an individual regardless of that person's ability or employer's wishes. Why should it have been legal for a union to call a strike without balloting its members who would lose pay? Why was secondary action legal or desirable, or fair even? What she achieved was to place unions on a democratic, fair and legal footing. Nothing else. Stevenboy

12:31pm Wed 22 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Stevenboy wrote:
endthelies wrote:
It still remains though that it was Maggie's actions of closing down our industries to satisfy her aim to annihilate the unions that is the root cause of the problems faced by many towns all over Britain. She closed the industries and then left the communities to rot, as have the following governments. Sorry but that is the way it is and no matter how much you try, you cannot deny that that was her purpose in closing the pits and other industries.
The unions weren't 'annihilated', their continued existence proves that. What she rid us of was injustices like closed shops where, a union could veto the recruitment or continued employment of an individual regardless of that person's ability or employer's wishes. Why should it have been legal for a union to call a strike without balloting its members who would lose pay? Why was secondary action legal or desirable, or fair even? What she achieved was to place unions on a democratic, fair and legal footing. Nothing else.
What she achieved was to make thousands of men redundant and make once thriving communities ghost towns.
[quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: It still remains though that it was Maggie's actions of closing down our industries to satisfy her aim to annihilate the unions that is the root cause of the problems faced by many towns all over Britain. She closed the industries and then left the communities to rot, as have the following governments. Sorry but that is the way it is and no matter how much you try, you cannot deny that that was her purpose in closing the pits and other industries.[/p][/quote]The unions weren't 'annihilated', their continued existence proves that. What she rid us of was injustices like closed shops where, a union could veto the recruitment or continued employment of an individual regardless of that person's ability or employer's wishes. Why should it have been legal for a union to call a strike without balloting its members who would lose pay? Why was secondary action legal or desirable, or fair even? What she achieved was to place unions on a democratic, fair and legal footing. Nothing else.[/p][/quote]What she achieved was to make thousands of men redundant and make once thriving communities ghost towns. endthelies

4:07pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

endthelies wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
endthelies wrote:
It still remains though that it was Maggie's actions of closing down our industries to satisfy her aim to annihilate the unions that is the root cause of the problems faced by many towns all over Britain. She closed the industries and then left the communities to rot, as have the following governments. Sorry but that is the way it is and no matter how much you try, you cannot deny that that was her purpose in closing the pits and other industries.
The unions weren't 'annihilated', their continued existence proves that. What she rid us of was injustices like closed shops where, a union could veto the recruitment or continued employment of an individual regardless of that person's ability or employer's wishes. Why should it have been legal for a union to call a strike without balloting its members who would lose pay? Why was secondary action legal or desirable, or fair even? What she achieved was to place unions on a democratic, fair and legal footing. Nothing else.
What she achieved was to make thousands of men redundant and make once thriving communities ghost towns.
I note you didn't deal with Steven's points though. You keep banging on about her tearing the unions to shreds and yet you can't bring yourself to admit that she had the guts to legislate outrageous abuse of power out of existence because the Labour Party didn't have. Which is why New Labour didn't repeal the laws she brought in. The tough stuff had already been done.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: It still remains though that it was Maggie's actions of closing down our industries to satisfy her aim to annihilate the unions that is the root cause of the problems faced by many towns all over Britain. She closed the industries and then left the communities to rot, as have the following governments. Sorry but that is the way it is and no matter how much you try, you cannot deny that that was her purpose in closing the pits and other industries.[/p][/quote]The unions weren't 'annihilated', their continued existence proves that. What she rid us of was injustices like closed shops where, a union could veto the recruitment or continued employment of an individual regardless of that person's ability or employer's wishes. Why should it have been legal for a union to call a strike without balloting its members who would lose pay? Why was secondary action legal or desirable, or fair even? What she achieved was to place unions on a democratic, fair and legal footing. Nothing else.[/p][/quote]What she achieved was to make thousands of men redundant and make once thriving communities ghost towns.[/p][/quote]I note you didn't deal with Steven's points though. You keep banging on about her tearing the unions to shreds and yet you can't bring yourself to admit that she had the guts to legislate outrageous abuse of power out of existence because the Labour Party didn't have. Which is why New Labour didn't repeal the laws she brought in. The tough stuff had already been done. Llanmartinangel

4:15pm Wed 22 Jan 14

endthelies says...

And you can't admit that she DELIBERATELY made thousands of men redundant in order to do it. It was a wonderful thing she did wasn't it? We all thank her in the valleys that's for sure.
And you can't admit that she DELIBERATELY made thousands of men redundant in order to do it. It was a wonderful thing she did wasn't it? We all thank her in the valleys that's for sure. endthelies

4:19pm Wed 22 Jan 14

endthelies says...

And talking about outrageous abuses of power, did she not try to involve the army to 'control' the striking miners, and did she not have the police in her pocket and have them incite rioting during the poll tax riots and also during the miners strike. Having them dress up as miners to stir up trouble so she could gain favour with the public and to maximise bad exposure for the miners. Now, to me, that's an abuse of power.
And talking about outrageous abuses of power, did she not try to involve the army to 'control' the striking miners, and did she not have the police in her pocket and have them incite rioting during the poll tax riots and also during the miners strike. Having them dress up as miners to stir up trouble so she could gain favour with the public and to maximise bad exposure for the miners. Now, to me, that's an abuse of power. endthelies

9:17pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

endthelies wrote:
And talking about outrageous abuses of power, did she not try to involve the army to 'control' the striking miners, and did she not have the police in her pocket and have them incite rioting during the poll tax riots and also during the miners strike. Having them dress up as miners to stir up trouble so she could gain favour with the public and to maximise bad exposure for the miners. Now, to me, that's an abuse of power.
Still didn't answer the question. As for involving the army, too right if that's what it took to stop civil unrest.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: And talking about outrageous abuses of power, did she not try to involve the army to 'control' the striking miners, and did she not have the police in her pocket and have them incite rioting during the poll tax riots and also during the miners strike. Having them dress up as miners to stir up trouble so she could gain favour with the public and to maximise bad exposure for the miners. Now, to me, that's an abuse of power.[/p][/quote]Still didn't answer the question. As for involving the army, too right if that's what it took to stop civil unrest. Llanmartinangel

9:33pm Wed 22 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
endthelies wrote:
And talking about outrageous abuses of power, did she not try to involve the army to 'control' the striking miners, and did she not have the police in her pocket and have them incite rioting during the poll tax riots and also during the miners strike. Having them dress up as miners to stir up trouble so she could gain favour with the public and to maximise bad exposure for the miners. Now, to me, that's an abuse of power.
Still didn't answer the question. As for involving the army, too right if that's what it took to stop civil unrest.
So you are saying its right to start a civil war because people were fighting to keep their jobs. I'd call that dictatorship personally. And she did indeed have the police go in and attack the poll tax protesters with batons, striking old age pensioners. Very brave of them. She also held the police in her hands over the Hillsborough tragedy, making sure there was a cover up that lasted for three decades. She was an evil person in my eyes and nothing will ever change my opinion. I have said before, the unions weren't blameless, but there must have been a better way to solve the dispute than closing down a viable coal business in order to satisfy her longing to bring an end to the union power. I don't know what the answers are but I do believe, very strongly, that it is because of her that the valleys are what they are today.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: And talking about outrageous abuses of power, did she not try to involve the army to 'control' the striking miners, and did she not have the police in her pocket and have them incite rioting during the poll tax riots and also during the miners strike. Having them dress up as miners to stir up trouble so she could gain favour with the public and to maximise bad exposure for the miners. Now, to me, that's an abuse of power.[/p][/quote]Still didn't answer the question. As for involving the army, too right if that's what it took to stop civil unrest.[/p][/quote]So you are saying its right to start a civil war because people were fighting to keep their jobs. I'd call that dictatorship personally. And she did indeed have the police go in and attack the poll tax protesters with batons, striking old age pensioners. Very brave of them. She also held the police in her hands over the Hillsborough tragedy, making sure there was a cover up that lasted for three decades. She was an evil person in my eyes and nothing will ever change my opinion. I have said before, the unions weren't blameless, but there must have been a better way to solve the dispute than closing down a viable coal business in order to satisfy her longing to bring an end to the union power. I don't know what the answers are but I do believe, very strongly, that it is because of her that the valleys are what they are today. endthelies

7:54am Thu 23 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

endthelies wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
endthelies wrote:
And talking about outrageous abuses of power, did she not try to involve the army to 'control' the striking miners, and did she not have the police in her pocket and have them incite rioting during the poll tax riots and also during the miners strike. Having them dress up as miners to stir up trouble so she could gain favour with the public and to maximise bad exposure for the miners. Now, to me, that's an abuse of power.
Still didn't answer the question. As for involving the army, too right if that's what it took to stop civil unrest.
So you are saying its right to start a civil war because people were fighting to keep their jobs. I'd call that dictatorship personally. And she did indeed have the police go in and attack the poll tax protesters with batons, striking old age pensioners. Very brave of them. She also held the police in her hands over the Hillsborough tragedy, making sure there was a cover up that lasted for three decades. She was an evil person in my eyes and nothing will ever change my opinion. I have said before, the unions weren't blameless, but there must have been a better way to solve the dispute than closing down a viable coal business in order to satisfy her longing to bring an end to the union power. I don't know what the answers are but I do believe, very strongly, that it is because of her that the valleys are what they are today.
What civil war? Who mentioned civil war?
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: And talking about outrageous abuses of power, did she not try to involve the army to 'control' the striking miners, and did she not have the police in her pocket and have them incite rioting during the poll tax riots and also during the miners strike. Having them dress up as miners to stir up trouble so she could gain favour with the public and to maximise bad exposure for the miners. Now, to me, that's an abuse of power.[/p][/quote]Still didn't answer the question. As for involving the army, too right if that's what it took to stop civil unrest.[/p][/quote]So you are saying its right to start a civil war because people were fighting to keep their jobs. I'd call that dictatorship personally. And she did indeed have the police go in and attack the poll tax protesters with batons, striking old age pensioners. Very brave of them. She also held the police in her hands over the Hillsborough tragedy, making sure there was a cover up that lasted for three decades. She was an evil person in my eyes and nothing will ever change my opinion. I have said before, the unions weren't blameless, but there must have been a better way to solve the dispute than closing down a viable coal business in order to satisfy her longing to bring an end to the union power. I don't know what the answers are but I do believe, very strongly, that it is because of her that the valleys are what they are today.[/p][/quote]What civil war? Who mentioned civil war? Llanmartinangel

10:02am Thu 23 Jan 14

endthelies says...

There wasn't a civil war, thank goodness, but it could well have turned out that way if, as you said, the army had been involved to solve a union dispute. A dispute between working men and the government.
There wasn't a civil war, thank goodness, but it could well have turned out that way if, as you said, the army had been involved to solve a union dispute. A dispute between working men and the government. endthelies

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree