Prev: Biker Guinea Pigs wanted!
Next: =A320 fine for leaving your engine=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?running=3D3F?=3D
From: sweller on 5 Mar 2010 14:23
'Hog wrote:

> Wasn't a key element of the dispute new legislation that required a
> ballot, which the NUM refused to do. I recall significant fines being
> levied on the Union.

Without looking it up, I have a book on it somewhere, the issue of
ballots was the NUM had allowed each region to vote on the strikes but
there was no national ballot - I'm pretty sure some court had upheld this
decision by the union.

The NUM was sequestered because they had failed to pay a fairly hefty
fine (around half of a million I think) after a "private" prosecution by
two miners who claimed there hadn't been an official ballot.

Bonwick is correct in that the Executive had been elected and given
powers to call strikes - but the Tories had changed the law and although
there had been regional ballots there hadn't been a national one and this
fell foul of the new law.

--
Simon
From: vulgarandmischevious on 5 Mar 2010 16:21
Charlie <nospam(a)all.ta> wrote:

> So, I stand by my claim that it was
> principally Scargill's intransigence that concluded with the closure of
> virtually every pit in the country, and the inevitable destruction of
> the industry.

Even in the realm of UKRM - which hosts many absurd and unsubstantiated
opinions - this is outlandishly nonsensical. Thatcher was determined to
close the mines, and she did.
From: Ace on 5 Mar 2010 17:05
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:21:23 -0700, vulgarandmischevious(a)gmail.com
(vulgarandmischevious) wrote:

>Charlie <nospam(a)all.ta> wrote:
>
>> So, I stand by my claim that it was
>> principally Scargill's intransigence that concluded with the closure of
>> virtually every pit in the country, and the inevitable destruction of
>> the industry.
>
>Even in the realm of UKRM - which hosts many absurd and unsubstantiated
>opinions - this is outlandishly nonsensical. Thatcher was determined to
>close the mines, and she did.

Sure, but that doesn't make Charlie wrong in what he said...

From: Charlie on 5 Mar 2010 17:07
On 05/03/2010 16:59, Andy Bonwick wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:33:56 +0000, Charlie<nospam(a)all.ta> wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/2010 09:17, M J Carley wrote:
>>
>>> In the referenced article, Charlie<nospam(a)all.ta> writes:
>>
>>> Pits had already come out before a ballot could have been called.
>>
>> That in no way obviated the requirement to call a ballot. He would have
>> won it, and that would have strenghtened his hand immeasurably. He was
>> stupid and arrogant enough not to play by the rules (however partial you
>> may consider those rules to have been) and thus was on the political
>> back-foot from the start. So, I stand by my claim that it was
>> principally Scargill's intransigence that concluded with the closure of
>> virtually every pit in the country, and the inevitable destruction of
>> the industry.
>
> Sweller will correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty certain that NUM
> rules didn't require a ballot if the executive decided on industrial
> action. The members voted the executive in and when they did so they
> effectively gave them permission to make decisions for them.

Nothing at all to do with NUM rules. The law had recently changed,
whether he liked it or not. Had he called a ballot he would have won
it, and that would have spiked the 'Tories', the government's, guns.
NUM would have been victorious.
From: Charlie on 5 Mar 2010 17:14
On 05/03/2010 21:21, vulgarandmischevious wrote:
> Charlie<nospam(a)all.ta> wrote:
>
>> So, I stand by my claim that it was
>> principally Scargill's intransigence that concluded with the closure of
>> virtually every pit in the country, and the inevitable destruction of
>> the industry.
>
> Even in the realm of UKRM - which hosts many absurd and unsubstantiated
> opinions - this is outlandishly nonsensical.

Praise indeed. You can't be satisfied with simply disagreeing?

I've dealt with this elsewhere in here. It was Scargill's refusal to go
along with the law, simply because of the colour of the government which
had passed the law, even though the support he had would have ensured
that he had the required mandate to make the strike legal, that stuffed
him. Even traditionally sympathetic press (Mirror, Guardian) turned
their backs on him because of it. He was an intransigent, pugnacious,
bombastic, inflexible fool. He could so easily have won, but he lost.
More to the point, the miners lost. The industry was destroyed. The
country lost. It was a disaster for almost everyone.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Prev: Biker Guinea Pigs wanted!
Next: =A320 fine for leaving your engine=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?running=3D3F?=3D