Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
National archives: Margaret Thatcher wanted to crush power of trade unions
Downing Street archives reveal Thatcher thought Norman Tebbit's stance on union reform too timid
"We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands. We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty," Margaret Thatcher speech to the backbench 1922 committee, July 1984.
The Cabinet papers published under the 30-year rule lay bare the scale of Margaret Thatcher's long-held ambitions to crush the power of Britain's trade unions even before she had won her historic 144-seat majority landslide victory.
The Downing Street papers from 1983 show she told Ferdinand Mount, then head of her policy unit, that she agreed that Norman Tebbit's gradualist approach to trade union reform was too timid and that they should "neglect no opportunity to erode trade union membership".
Thatcher told Mount to put the policy work in hand but to keep his trade union reform paper, in which he referred to the unions as "a politicised mafia", wholly confidential. "We must neglect no opportunity to erode trade union membership wherever this corresponds to the wishes of the workforce. We must see to it our new legal structure discourages trade union membership of the new industries," wrote Mount.
He said that by the end of the century they also hoped to see "a trade union movement whose exclusive relationship with the Labour party is reduced out of all recognition. Again, it is absurd and unjust that millions of Conservatives, Liberals and Social Democrats should be supporting the Labour party directly or indirectly. This relationship fossilises the Labour party and stultifies the whole political dialogue."
Although the prime minister responded by saying she agreed with Mount, his demand to ensure that trade union members had to opt in, rather than opt out of the political levy - as now being contemplated by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband - was regarded as a step too far at that time by Thatcher and Tebbit because it revived the argument about the financing of political parties. The Tories feared it could also lead to a quid pro quo ban on company donations.
They were not alone in their determination to take on the unions. As early as January 1983, Nigel Lawson - who had already spent two years as energy secretary building up coal stocks in preparation for the expected showdown with the miners - was telling Thatcher: "If Scargill succeeds in bringing about such a strike, we must do everything in our power to defeat him, including ensuring that the strike results in widespread closures."
In March, Thatcher's press secretary, Bernard Ingham, also urged her to take on the miners, telling her: "Events have not, however, challenged the post-war impression of their invincibility, for we have yet to beat a national stoppage ... In my view the last thing we should do today is lend credibility to Scargill."
The cabinet papers released by the National Archives on Thursday show that the preparations - including a debate among Whitehall officials over whether troops should be used during the miners' strike - were well under way. Lawson also argued for a rapid acceleration in the pace of the pit closures secretly scheduled for 1983/84, demanding that 34 pits, including a dozen in Yorkshire and the Midlands, should be listed, rather than the 20 that eventually sparked the start of the strike in March 1984.
The papers show that detailed discussions on withstanding a coal strike went on in a secret committee of Whitehall officials known as Misc 57 throughout 1983. A good deal of work had already been done in 1982, when it was decided that it was not practicable to use servicemen to move coal by rail.
By that October, in a "secret and personal" note to Thatcher, Peter Gregson, the Cabinet Office deputy secretary, was telling her that using the army to move coal by road would be a formidable undertaking: "4-5,000 lorry movements a day for 20 weeks ... the law and order problems of coping with pickets would be enormous ... a major risk would be the power station workers would refuse to handle coal brought in by servicemen this way".
Misc 57 had thought there might be a limited role for the troops in delivering ancillary materials, such as lighting-up oil, under close supervision.
But Thatcher was careful not to close the door on the use of the army to move coal from the working pits to the power stations, and ordered further work to be done. In the following May, the issue was reopened when the Cabinet Office derided such uses of the army as "spectacular gestures which are likely in practice to worsen the situation".
Brigadier Tony Budd, secretary of the civil contingencies unit in the Cabinet Office, took exception, pointing out that this had not been the case when the army was used for "firefighting, providing an emergency ambulance service, refuse collection and even providing emergency car parking in London", despite some union "huffing and puffing".
In the event it was the paramilitary use of the police in pitched battles with mass pickets, rather than the army, that was to lead to some of the bitterest scenes in the miners' strike.
But the ultimately successful strategy was spelled out by Lawson to his cabinet colleagues in late 1982: to do everything to undermine the miners' will to continue a lengthy strike by demonstrating that its effects were limited. The preparations particularly focused on ensuring that electricity supplies were not interrupted for a considerable period of time.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
garyc
was you ever in any doubt that this was the case??
sounds like she had it in for hague as well
unfortunately scargill walked into it
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
The last paragraph sums it up.
Behind the scenes, however, a secret Whitehall working group - codenamed MISC 57 - was established to lay the ground for the battle to come.
They began to buy land next to electricity power stations - which were nearly all coal-fired - so coal could be stockpiled to keep them running through a strike. They also started converting stations to dual-firing so they could run on oil if coal supplies were exhausted.
MISC 57 discussed using troops to move coal, although officials warned it would be a "formidable undertaking".
In a memorandum dated October 27 1983, PL Gregson at the Cabinet Office noted: "A major risk might be that power station workers would refuse to handle coal brought in by servicemen in this way."
The next day, however, a meeting of senior ministers chaired by Mrs Thatcher ruled that while they might be able to rely on existing coal stocks in the early stages of a strike, planning for the use of troops should continue.
"It was agreed that... it might be necessary at some stage to examine more radical options for extending endurance, including the use of servicemen to move pithead stocks to power stations," the minutes noted.
As the Government moved towards the general election of 1983, preparations for an expected conflict over pit closures was stepped up.
In January 1983, Energy Secretary Nigel Lawson said while the National Coal Board (NCB) was still not yet confident of winning a strike, they needed to be ready for a decisive showdown once the election was out of the way.
"While the board are currently thinking a national strike would last for two months, I believe it could well be longer," he wrote to Mrs Thatcher.
"If Scargill succeeds in bringing about such a strike we must do everything in our power to defeat him, including ensuring that the strike results in widespread closures."
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Maggie was well planned in her ideals to take on scargill and sadly the miners,
Scargill at the time(and years before) made many tactical errors.
This is not to say I'm a fan of Maggie, as taking on the miners was one move towards to break all trade unions,
and being active in trade unions all my life, at national/local level, we could all see the writing on the wall.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
enemy within???
nigel lawson wanting to close pits if strike action was taken, the blues at that time were just as vindictive as scargill.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Absolutely right. No revelations here, common knowledge.
The Unions were indeed 'the enemy within' who spent decades destroying much of British industry, accruing power to themselves while bullying and intimidating their members. Some of the Union leaders we now know (Jack Jones....) were doing so at the behest of their Soviet masters.
They needed to be crushed, they had to be crushed. Sadly they remain a malign influence in the public sector so Mrs T did not do a thorough enough job on them.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
She closed all of our collieries in Kent, decimating our communities.
What more could she have done or put another way, what more would you have liked her to do?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The miners closed them, their militancy ensured that. If I was in charge I would definitely target militant areas first.
But, of course, it wasn't really like that. Scargill got the fight he was after, he lost - get over it.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
there you go gary c
that's how the tories think,
no matter the destroyed communities
lumped people on the dole (at a big cost)
reform of unions was required and many did
but at least you know where you stand with the tories
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
closing profit making pits and putting people on the dole is clearly a vindictive act unworthy of any government.
the taxpayer footed the bill so that a few egos in the cabinet were satisfied.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW
#28 makes you no better than Scargill and all the other union leaders that had their own agenda.
Our only agenda was to keep our mines open and our communities alive.
I have agreed many times that the unions were far too strong and our economy was suffering for it.
Now its people like you that are crippling our economy, stuck in the past with only revenge on your mind.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The miners were responsible for destroying their own communities through their militancy.
The is not about being vindictive - it is all about consequences of their own actions. They were one of the most militant mining areas of the country for many years, not just during Scargill's time.
If they really cared so much about their community and their jobs they should have been more sensible and moderate. What happened to them was simply brought upon themselves by their actions over a long time.
Why on earth would anyone with the tiniest bit of common sense want to invest in an area where the workforce was so destructive to their own employer. What is good for a private individual is good for a nationalised industry - or should be.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
union leaders with an agenda and ego to suit themselves and rabid right wingers are equally despised by the rest of us - the vast majority who actually care about the society we live in.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Barry
The facts betthanger was producing all production targets set them by British coal at that time
And the cheapest un subsidised coal in Europe
Political decision to shut a good National asset
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
well said keith b
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Maybe Keith but with an unreliable militant workforce who support the very worse elements in that industry it was far too much trouble to keep it open. Hardly a national asset.
We all make our own luck at the end of the day and the miners were the architect of their own fate.
As I said - they did not really care about their community, if they did they would not have behaved they way they did and got what they deserved. I feel sorry for the sensible miners who defied the Union and kept working but sadly there were too few of them locally.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Gary it really is time to move on, there was fault on both sides but this was nearly 30 years ago and dragging up the same old bitterness is destructive.
Like you I'll be at the Miners Festival in a couple of weeks, think positive
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Normal working people do not won't to be union official's leaders or managers or councillors
People step into these roles for there own agenda ,
Most working class men are right wing thinking with a strong belief in social justice,
The arrogance of British management can be seen as confrontational to the working man
It could not have been the men in the ship industries, mining ,steel or manufacturing ,responsible for the demise of these industries
Management not doing the job should take some blame
German management and politician sat down with workers and compromised for the grater good
German managers and politicians won orders and protected the Infrastructure of these industries
What did our managers and politicians do, sacked every one and brought in the bulldozers rolled it all up and sent it to china ,,, genius,,,
Ps. and sealed the fate of the Tory party as the rich nasty party.
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
Fact.
The miners DID NOT draw up a hit list of pits to close, Thatcher DID.
Fact.
Prior to the knowledge of that list coal productivity was exceeding targets.
Fact.
The miners RESPONDED to threats and bully tactics, they DID NOT initiate them.
Fact.
No matter how much evidence, outright proof and accounts by those who endured the strike, no Tory will ever accept responsibility for the effect their policies had on the innocent children of the miners and their families. Miners have always suffered the humiliation of being regarded as second class citizens yet give me the company of the working class over upper class snobbery and superiority any time. ( generalization accepted.)
