Looks like Scargill Was Right

Cabinet papers 'reveal coal pit hit-list'

By Nick Higham BBC News

Newly released cabinet papers from 1984 reveal mineworkers' union leader Arthur Scargill may have been right to claim there was a "secret hit-list" of more than 70 pits marked for closure.

The government and National Coal Board said at the time they wanted to close 20. But the documents reveal a plan to shut 75 mines over three years.

A key adviser to then-PM Margaret Thatcher denies any cover-up claims.

The miners' strike began in March 1984 and did not end until the next year.

Other papers from 1984 reveal warnings of violence outside the Libyan embassy, in which WPC Yvonne Fletcher was killed.

One of the warnings was passed on by the British ambassador in Tripoli, Oliver Miles, who was sceptical about what he was told by Libyan government officials.

And the previously confidential files released on Friday by the National Archives also show the effect of the Brighton bomb on Mrs Thatcher's thinking about Ireland.
line break

'Secret' meeting at No 10
Document marked "Not to be photocopied or circulated outside the private office" recording a meeting attended by seven people, including the prime minister, chancellor, energy secretary and employment secretary, at No 10 about pit closures A document in the secret files includes an instruction that details of the meeting should not be made public

The year-long miners' strike, which started in March 1984, was characterised by often violent confrontations between police and massed picketing miners,

At one stage during the miners' strike the government hoped it might catch red-handed someone from the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) trying to smuggle a suitcase full of banknotes into Britain.

The union's assets had been seized after the NUM refused to pay fines. But the government thought miners might get financial support from Moscow or eastern Europe, and was trying to prevent the funds getting through.

Cabinet Secretary Sir Robert Armstrong wrote: "If a representative of the NUM could be detected entering this country with a suitcase full of banknotes, it might be possible for him to be stopped and searched at customs."

"Those concerned" (by which he presumably meant Special Branch and MI5) were "exercising vigilance" and on the look-out for anyone from the union going abroad "for the purpose of collecting consignments of notes".

This was, he admitted, something of a long shot, "but is the best we can do".

The revelation now that there was an agreement in government to shut 75 pits by the following year, and cut 64,000 jobs, will doubtless reawaken some of the old hostilities

Nick Jones, who covered the strike for BBC radio as its industrial correspondent and later wrote a book about the dispute, said a document in the files dating from September 1983 was of particular significance.

The document, marked "Not to be photocopied or circulated outside the private office", records a meeting attended by just seven people, including the prime minister, chancellor, energy secretary and employment secretary, at No 10.

The meeting was told the National Coal Board's pit closure programme had "gone better this year than planned: there had been one pit closed every three weeks" and the workforce had shrunk by 10%.

The new chairman of the board, Ian MacGregor, now meant to go further.

"Mr MacGregor had it in mind over the three years 1983-85 that a further 75 pits would be closed... There should be no closure list, but a pit-by-pit procedure.

"The manpower at the end of that time in the industry would be down to 138,000 from its current level of 202,000."
Chairman of National Coal Board, Ian MacGregor, quoted in secret No 10 meeting note: "Mr MacGregor had it in mind over the three years 1983-85 that a further 75 pits would be closed... There should be no closure list, but a pit-by-pit procedure. The manpower at the end of that time in the industry would be down to 138,000 from its current level of 202,000." The document reveals that plans for pit closures and subsequent job losses were discussed

As a result, two-thirds of Welsh miners would become redundant, a third of those in Scotland, almost half of those in north east England, half in South Yorkshire and almost half in the South Midlands. The entire Kent coalfield would close.

The final paragraph of the document read: "It was agreed that no record of this meeting should be circulated."

A week later another document written by a senior civil servant suggested the same small group should meet regularly in future, but that there should be "nothing in writing which clarifies the understandings about strategy which exist between Mr MacGregor and the secretary of state for energy".
Library filer dated 20/8/1984 of police and pickets at the Gascoigne Wood mine in the Selby coalfield The papers revealed the government briefly considered getting troops to move coal

"If this document had ever emerged during the strike it would have been devastating for the credibility of Margaret Thatcher" because Mrs Thatcher and Mr MacGregor always maintained there were plans for the closure of only 20 pits, said Mr Jones.

"It raises in my mind the question of whether there was a cover-up of these figures, and whether when we look back at what actually happened Arthur Scargill was right when he claimed that Ian MacGregor wanted to butcher the industry all along."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25549596

Shame the papers were not revealed before she died.

The coal industy was receiving £00millions in subsidies from taxpayers.

In other words, they were all on benefits. We couldn't afford it.

I'm glad they shut them down and reduced their benefits.

Plenty of small businesses shut down because they're not making money - that was the same.

The banks are more honest than the coalmining industry was.

BigAndy9 wrote:The coal industy was receiving £00millions in subsidies from taxpayers.

In other words, they were all on benefits.  We couldn't afford it.

I'm glad they shut them down and reduced their benefits.

Plenty of small businesses shut down because they're not making money - that was the same.

The banks are more honest than the coalmining industry was.

Good afternoon BA.

Got to disagree with you shipmate as what Maggie did to the miners was awful.Just awful.

All those poor buggers wanted to do was keep their livelyhoods like any other working class people.And it simply is not good enough to tell people,thousands of people that their jobs have gone & there's next to no hope of finding alternative employment.

And for the Prime Minister to do such a thing to her own people was horrendous.

Fortunately for me & my family,I have always had a job but I would have reacted just as the miners did if I had been placed in their situation.

Shady wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:The coal industy was receiving £00millions in subsidies from taxpayers.

In other words, they were all on benefits.  We couldn't afford it.

I'm glad they shut them down and reduced their benefits.

Plenty of small businesses shut down because they're not making money - that was the same.

The banks are more honest than the coalmining industry was.

Good afternoon BA.

Got to disagree with you shipmate as what Maggie did to the miners was awful.Just awful.

All those poor buggers wanted to do was keep their livelyhoods like any other working class people.And it simply is not good enough to tell people,thousands of people that their jobs have gone & there's next to no hope of finding alternative employment.

And for the Prime Minister to do such a thing to her own people was horrendous.

Fortunately for me & my family,I have always had a job but I would have reacted just as the miners did if I had been placed in their situation.

It was a mob mentality - thugs in large numbers.

People are put out of work daily - thousands every year - do they riot, assault others, no.

They did, so they are thugs.

What are those in the armed forces who have been made redundant doing - rioting?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon BA.

Got to disagree with you shipmate as what Maggie did to the miners was awful.Just awful.

All those poor buggers wanted to do was keep their livelyhoods like any other working class people.And it simply is not good enough to tell people,thousands of people that their jobs have gone & there's next to no hope of finding alternative employment.

And for the Prime Minister to do such a thing to her own people was horrendous.

Fortunately for me & my family,I have always had a job but I would have reacted just as the miners did if I had been placed in their situation.

It was a mob mentality - thugs in large numbers.

People are put out of work daily - thousands every year - do they riot, assault others, no.

They did, so they are thugs.  

What are those in the armed forces who have been made redundant doing - rioting?

I understand what you mean Andy & as daft as this sounds,I agree with you.But to wipe out peoples lives/jobs & to virtually wipe out the entire industry which employed so many people is beyond cruelty.

Now if Maggie (who I couldn't stand) & her government had said to the miners,'Look chaps,mining is in a mess & we have to close pits but before we do,we'll do our best to create new jobs for you.'Then that is different but to wipe them all out shows such contemptuous feeling to hard working people....working class people,that is beyond the pale.

And thats just one of the reasons great swathes of this country hated her guts

BigAndy9 wrote:The coal industy was receiving £00millions in subsidies from taxpayers.

In other words, they were all on benefits.  We couldn't afford it.

I'm glad they shut them down and reduced their benefits.

Plenty of small businesses shut down because they're not making money - that was the same.

The banks are more honest than the coalmining industry was.

And therein lies the rub Andy, because British Coal Mining wasn't subsidised, other countries subsidised their mining, which was why their coal was cheaper.

She shafted a whole industry, communities and thousands of people all on the back of nothing but disdain for the working classes she despised so much.

Bitch

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:The coal industy was receiving £00millions in subsidies from taxpayers.

In other words, they were all on benefits.  We couldn't afford it.

I'm glad they shut them down and reduced their benefits.

Plenty of small businesses shut down because they're not making money - that was the same.

The banks are more honest than the coalmining industry was.

And therein lies the rub Andy, because British Coal Mining wasn't subsidised, other countries subsidised their mining, which was why their coal was cheaper.

"Coal mining had been nationalised by Clement Attlee's Labour government in 1947 and was in 1984 managed by the National Coal Board (NCB) under Ian MacGregor. As in most of Europe, the industry was heavily state subsidised (though a number of UK mines ("pits") were profitable)."

Part of a separate article:

That’s why people in places like Sheffield will be celebrating Margaret Thatcher’s death. There’s just one problem. It’s wrong.

For starters, feel the parochialism. Thatcher was bad for Sheffield ergo she was bad. Never mind the rest of the country. Never mind the GDP growth of 23 percent or the increase in the median wage of 25 percent during her time in office. For most people the Thatcher years were ones of prosperity. That’s why she regularly tops polls of most popular Prime Ministers.

This is not to say that this person’s view is worthless. But it is to say that an opinion formed simply by looking up and down your street might not be too useful.

Then, just how proud actually were places like Sheffield before Thatcher came along? How proud can any city be when it is, essentially, a vast welfare case getting by on the wealth transferred to it from other parts of the country?

That was the truth of the industrial situation in these areas. Take coal. Just before the First World War the mines employed more than 1 million men in 3,000 pits producing 300 million tonnes of coal annually.

By the time the industry was nationalised in 1947 700,000 men were producing just 200 million tonnes a year. To improve this situation, in 1950, the first Plan for Coal pumped £520 million into the industry to boost production to 240 million tonnes a year.

This target was never met. In 1956, the record year for post war coal production, 228 million tonnes were produced, too little to meet demand, and 17 million tonnes had to be imported. Oil, a cheaper energy source, was growing in importance, British Rail ditching coal powered steam for oil driven electricity, for example.

Jobs were lost in numbers that dwarfed anything under Thatcher. 264 pits closed between 1957 and 1963. 346,000 miners left the industry between 1963 and 1968. In 1967 alone there were 12,900 forced redundancies. Under Harold Wilson one pit closed every week.

1969 was the last year when coal accounted for more than half of Britain’s energy consumption. By 1970, when the Conservatives were elected, there were just 300 pits left – a fall of two thirds in 25 years.

By 1974 coal accounted for less than one third of energy consumption in Britain. Wilson’s incoming Labour government published a new Plan for Coal which predicted an increase in production from 110 million tonnes to 135 million tonnes a year by 1985. This was never achieved.

May I start a new thread;

"looks like BigAndy9 was right"

 :D 

 

I RECKON that a much more suitable and accurate heading could be :

"Looks like L'ilAndy was Once Again to the (Far) Right of Attila the Hun !"

  

and now of course, we are sat on 100's of millions of tons of coal, which we can no longer get to, and are dependent upon the good graces and market prices of energy from the likes of russia etc. In other words big andy we are now, utterly, dependent upon those foreigners you so despise. Kinda ironic aint it

How bloody true, plus they have found a way to take out the toxic emissions from the coal, making burning it much cleaner.

grumpy old git wrote:and now of course, we are sat on 100's of millions of tons of coal, which we can no longer get to, and are dependent upon the good graces and market prices of energy from the likes of russia etc. In other words big andy we are now, utterly, dependent upon those foreigners you so despise. Kinda ironic aint it

People still have chimneys...So coal could be brought back.

..Nothing better than a coal fire imo....  

The smell, the sound...Better than central heating really!

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:

And therein lies the rub Andy, because British Coal Mining wasn't subsidised, other countries subsidised their mining, which was why their coal was cheaper.

"Coal mining had been nationalised by Clement Attlee's Labour government in 1947 and was in 1984 managed by the National Coal Board (NCB) under Ian MacGregor. As in most of Europe, the industry was heavily state subsidised (though a number of UK mines ("pits") were profitable)."

Part of a separate article:

That’s why people in places like Sheffield will be celebrating Margaret Thatcher’s death. There’s just one problem. It’s wrong.

For starters, feel the parochialism. Thatcher was bad for Sheffield ergo she was bad. Never mind the rest of the country. Never mind the GDP growth of 23 percent or the increase in the median wage of 25 percent during her time in office. For most people the Thatcher years were ones of prosperity. That’s why she regularly tops polls of most popular Prime Ministers.

This is not to say that this person’s view is worthless. But it is to say that an opinion formed simply by looking up and down your street might not be too useful.  

Then, just how proud actually were places like Sheffield before Thatcher came along? How proud can any city be when it is, essentially, a vast welfare case getting by on the wealth transferred to it from other parts of the country?

That was the truth of the industrial situation in these areas. Take coal. Just before the First World War the mines employed more than 1 million men in 3,000 pits producing 300 million tonnes of coal annually.

By the time the industry was nationalised in 1947 700,000 men were producing just 200 million tonnes a year. To improve this situation, in 1950, the first Plan for Coal pumped £520 million into the industry to boost production to 240 million tonnes a year.

This target was never met. In 1956, the record year for post war coal production, 228 million tonnes were produced, too little to meet demand, and 17 million tonnes had to be imported. Oil, a cheaper energy source, was growing in importance, British Rail ditching coal powered steam for oil driven electricity, for example.  

Jobs were lost in numbers that dwarfed anything under Thatcher. 264 pits closed between 1957 and 1963. 346,000 miners left the industry between 1963 and 1968. In 1967 alone there were 12,900 forced redundancies. Under Harold Wilson one pit closed every week.

1969 was the last year when coal accounted for more than half of Britain’s energy consumption. By 1970, when the Conservatives were elected, there were just 300 pits left – a fall of two thirds in 25 years.

By 1974 coal accounted for less than one third of energy consumption in Britain. Wilson’s incoming Labour government published a new Plan for Coal which predicted an increase in production from 110 million tonnes to 135 million tonnes a year by 1985. This was never achieved.

You really are having a laugh with that from The Commentator or where ever you found it.

No miners were forced out of the industry in 1967. Those that took up redundancy decided to accept that rather than relocate to other pits.

And coal imports into this country for mainstream use didn't start until 1971 under the Heath Tory government.
The Tories closed more pits than Labour did since 1947 - Fact.

I said at the time, it was the right fight, but the wrong man to lead it. Scargil was NO leader, politically inept, a big gob and too abrasive for the needs..

grumpy old git wrote:I said at the time, it was the right fight, but the wrong man to lead it. Scargil was NO leader, politically inept, a big gob and too abrasive for the needs..

Scargil went in to the strike with a big union and a little house and came out with a little union and a big house

NemsAgain wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:I said at the time, it was the right fight, but the wrong man to lead it. Scargil was NO leader, politically inept, a big gob and too abrasive for the needs..

Scargil went in to the strike with a big union and a little house  and came out with a little union and a big house

The unions shafted the miners comrades and as nems said as the miners starved the union leaders got fat.

Only totally distorted lefties could say this. The miners bough into union propaganda that they couldn't lose after Heath was brought down by Gormley. Many deep mines were simply to expensive to run. Even those like Mosley Common which had significant investment were compromisd by regular wild cat strikes as militant union leaders told the men they>ll never shut it. I know because my Dad worked there.

Still never let the facts get in the way comrades.

Clarkson wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Scargil went in to the strike with a big union and a little house  and came out with a little union and a big house

The unions shafted the miners comrades and as nems said as the miners starved the union leaders got fat.

Only totally distorted lefties could say this. The miners bough into union propaganda that they couldn't lose after Heath was brought down by Gormley. Many deep mines were simply to expensive to run. Even those like Mosley Common which had significant investment were compromisd by regular wild cat strikes as militant union leaders told the men they>ll never shut it. I know because my Dad worked there.

Still never let the facts get in the way comrades.

The information coming out now showed that she lied and there was a hit list after all. It wouldn't have mattered who was leading the Union, she would have done them in anyway even if it meant starving the men and their families and destroying their communities - which she did. And now we are dependent on imported coal at the price decided by the countries who sell it to us. They subsidised their coal industries but now they don't have to because we have no alternative.

What a great result.