Firstly, who cares if they are publicly funded or not. They are disgusting and show the utter hypocrisy of the left.

Secondly, if they are not directly publcily funded (i.e. public funds going to produce the T-Shirts) they certainly are indirectly so, as public money is being spent by DUWC on other projects, freeing up funding for other things – such as making T-Shirts.

No doubt the taxpayer will however have to fund Mrs Thatcher’s funeral, I fully expect Mark Wallace, Henry Cole, Conor Burns, David Morris and Peter Bottomley to be as outspoken in their criticism of that waste of public funds but I’m not holding my breath.
Mrs Thatcher was the most divisive Prime Minister in British history and that debate has been held a thousand thousand times.

So Barrie – do you think that these t-shirts belong in a civilised, tolerant, inclusive society? Do we have to put up with every pice of phobic legislation but not apparently be civil to an elderly lady

I agree with Tyler.

Whatever one’s views on the Thatcher T-Shirts, the fact of the matter is that DUWC does not receive public funds for their production. There is no illegality involved. Had Mark Wallace bothered himself to ask them, he’d have found out.

What, and let mere facts and some proper research get in the way of the right-wing noise machine? Not a chance.

Tyler:

Secondly, if they are not directly publcily funded (i.e. public funds going to produce the T-Shirts) they certainly are indirectly so, as public money is being spent by DUWC on other projects, freeing up funding for other things – such as making T-Shirts.

Fenton:

The campaigning side of the organisation is a totally separate affair. The latter depends on fundraising, not public funds.

So, Tyler, you’re complaining that the DUWC had a whip-round?

“To be fair to Wallace, his blogpost does say “apparently taxpayer-funded” in its body text, but the “apparently” gets missed in the headline.”

Following the link in the OP I read the headline:

“The outfit selling Thatcher death t-shirts is taxpayer-funded”

Which is correct, is it not? It doesn’t say the t-shirt printing was tax-payer funded. Besides, it’s a somewhat dubious distinction.

Jelly & Icecream when Thatcher dies!

Over the years I’ve ordered dozens of t-shirts that were printed with less than expected quality. Last year my company printed some t-shirts with PCA Delta in Pompano Beach FL, and they were great. I’ve been printing with them ever since. If you need t-shirts or other apparel printed go to http://www.pcadeltaprinting.com/ I strongly recommend them.

My thanks as ever to Sunny for bringing this post to a wider audience. I did ask Mark Wallace whether he had checked with DUWC before publishing, and the Twitter exchange is shown in the original post:

http://zelo.tv/OsKkCF

@1

Tyler, could you try to write your own words for once, rather than rely on right-wing quote generators?

If you had the first idea of local Government, you’d know that any sign of organisations cross-subsidising other parts of their business from funds specifically allocated would have them defunded PDQ on pain of the District Auditor wading in.

@6

Read down the Wallace post to the end and you’ll see where he puts his emphasis.

The original post isn’t about being pro or anti Margaret Thatcher, but that a specific accusation has been made by three people, none of whom checked their facts first, and that the accusation is wrong and unfounded. That is all.

Mark Wallace is very selective which bandwagons he jumps on. I wrote to him 2 and a half years ago over what I considered to be a shocking waste of taxpayers money but apparently I wasn’t high-profile enough to even warrant a reply and it was not until I wrote to the local MP that something was done to address the situation. So unless it is ending up in the press Wallace has no interest in the waste of taxpayers money.

@ 9 Tim

“The original post isn’t about being pro or anti Margaret Thatcher, but that a specific accusation has been made by three people”

Does this group receive tax-payer’s money? Yes / No
Did this group produce the t-shirts? Yes / No

If the answer to the above questions is ‘yes’, then it’s not surprising that people who find the t-shirt offensive object to tax-payer funding being given to the group. That there is no doubt a distinction between the pot which receives the tax-payers’ money and the pot which the group used to pay for the t-shirts does not change this, and similar situations can easily be imagined which would have the punters here up in arms.

Richard Carey:

Does this group receive tax-payer’s money? Yes / No
Did this group produce the t-shirts? Yes / No

I love a good syllogism, me: this argument seems to be on the same level as:

Does a cat have four legs? Yes/No
Does a dog have four legs? Yes/No
Therefore a dog is really a cat: That there is no doubt a distinction between animals that purr and animals which bark does not change this

This is turning into a case of ‘right-wingers jump to wrong conclusions – and refuse to back down when called on it and proved wrong.’ They were on much safer ground simply for disliking the T-shirts.

“They are disgusting and show the utter hypocrisy of the left”

You have NO IDEA how hated that woman is, especially in my part of the world (the north east).

I have no problems saying that I’m having a party the day the black-hearted life-ruiner pegs it.

“do you think that these t-shirts belong in a civilised, tolerant, inclusive society?”

If we really live in a civilised, tolerant, inclusive society, she’d never have become Prime Minister.

@ Tim Fenton and others

DUWC recieves taxpayer funding. That means they can use that money to displace other funds recieved. Those non-taxpayer funds can then be used for other purposes – like printing offensive T-shirts.

It’s the same story with other union funding from taxpayers. It frees up other union finances for other purposes. So whilst not directly funding something it’s not supposed to, that displacement indirectly allows activity which otherwise could not be afforded.

Very much seems like a lot of you are tacitly endorsing the T-shirts. Which makes you disgusting little hypocrites to your progressiive ideals. I wonder how you people would react if there was a T-shirt printed celebrating the impending death of one of your lefty icons. But then again, I suppose you people already put a picture of a nasty piece of work like Che on a T-Shirt and call him a hero.

Tyler

Harris Trust and others like them recieves taxpayer assets (schools) through the academy programme – which is then sold (school playing fields) to pay executive wages that are in part donated to governing party coffers through personal donations.

Since without those wages the executives may not have been able to donate money to the parties – are you saying that the Tory Party is tax-funded via this mechanism?

Just curious – y’know – for consistency of your ire.

Since most of us lefties find MT vile, the only hypocrisy would be to pretend to find the T-shirts unacceptable.

As to this displacement argument, it only works if printing these T-shirts was at the bottom of the priority list. If the T-shirts were always a must-have, then they would have been bought with or without the govt funding. Are they for sale? If so, they may in fact be self-funding!

I should add as well, for sake of fairness, as a liberal supporter of free speech and free expression – I don’t have any particular problem with the t-shirts.

Tyler may do – but perhaps he doesn’t believe in freedom.

I salute the DUWC’s enterprise in marketing t-shirts to help fund their services.

I’m on t-shirts??

Tyler, you have to stop acting as if “the left” is some kind of amorphous hive-mind. Just because some lefties have an unfortunate tendency to eulogise my near-namesake, doesn’t mean “you lot” (i.e. all of us) do. And if one lefty is all about compassion and forgiveness, and another lefty likes to listen to Tramp The Dirt Down and says they’ll have a party when Thatcher dies, the first isn’t made a hypocrite by the actions of the second.

It’s like me saying: “libertarians are in favour of gay marriage, but Bible-Belt Republicans aren’t! Bloody hypocrites!”

I don’t see how Tories can expect working class people not to loathe Thatcher. She ruined millions of lives.

How can I help to fund anti-Thatcher tee-shirts, etc. Will somebody please give me a website to contact?

Thanks.

Tyler:

DUWC recieves taxpayer funding. That means they can use that money to displace other funds recieved. Those non-taxpayer funds can then be used for other purposes – like printing offensive T-shirts.

What part of ‘fundraising’ do you not get? Those ‘non-taxpayer’ funds are more commonly termed ‘donations’…you know, contributions voluntary given by members of the public (often by people who pay tax as well).

On the other hand, it may simply be that you object to ‘taxpayers’ funding unions in the first place – so frankly the T-shirts are a red herring.

@ Chaise,

“Tyler, you have to stop acting as if “the left” is some kind of amorphous hive-mind.”

It’s an easy mistake to make sometimes, and this thread is a good example of why.

Do we have to put up with every pice of phobic legislation but not apparently be civil to an elderly lady

That elderly lady caused the collapse of millions of household and the communities they were part of. I hope she suffers a long painful death, preferably wallowing in the mess of her own incontinence.

You know what? If all you cunts care about is a few joke T shirts, then you are blind to the real, long term damage this bastards caused to great swathes of the Country.

Richard

It is only an easy mistake to make if one is inclined to bland and dumb generalisations about wide and diverse groups of people.

And surely especially so on LC where so many of us lefties disagree with eachother on so constantly.

The T-shirts are certainly in bad taste but, judging from the topics on the Mohammed movie trailer, I thought that we were in favour of free speech even if some people got a little offended.

I’d wager that many Chileans felt the same way about Pinochet. So what? The Tories love to tell us how they hate political correctness, yet here they are being, er, politically correct. So what about those lovely “Hang Mandela” T-Shirts that the FCS loved to wear in the 1980s? Eh?

1- Clearly some people care because they’re making political attacks based on the erroneous assumption they are taxpayer funded. So you’re ok with factually incorrect arguments, because, you know, ‘who cares’? Not sure how they show any hypocrisy either – most people (even those ‘on the left’) have said they disapprove.

2- Doesn’t really work like that. The DUWC receives funds for it’s advice service. The money for campaigning comes from other sources. Therefore other sources funded the t-shirts.

Ergo they are not taxpayer funded. It’s really that simple.

@ 23 Richard

“It’s an easy mistake to make sometimes, and this thread is a good example of why.”

OK. Next time I find myself on a thread with, say, six Christian Right types decrying gay rights, I’ll be sure to assume that everyone on the right is a homophobe. Fun times!

Or we could all, you know, be sensible.

@ 25

Usually speaking Jim is at the fringe. When Thatcher comes up, he becomes mainstream, and we are all transported to a Rik from the Young Ones impersonation contest.

@ Chaise,

all I said was ‘It’s an easy mistake to make sometimes’, but I will try to be sensible.

@ Richard

Cool. It’s Tyler who’s annoying me really, anyway. He’s the one frothing at the mouth and being all irrational.

Blimey, it’s all a bit partisan as usual (which makes “blimey” a bit redundant).

To summarise:

1) The T-Shirts weren’t taxpayer-funded, because they weren’t taxpayer-funded.

2) Wishing somebody dead can be construed as mean-spirited or worse, but, hey, that’s free speech.

My only quibble is on a technicality. The t-shirts read: “a generation of Trades Unionists will dance on Thatcher’s grave”.
She wasn’t universally popular (to put it mildly), but she did make a particular connection with union members. I forget the exact numbers, but polling suggested that she was, a) more popular with members than Labour, and by some margin, and that, b) union members and the wider working class were her power base.

This may be seem impossible to those below, say, 45, but union leaders were pretty shocking at the time.

@ Jack C,

the original post by Wallace doesn’t say that the t-shirts were tax-funded, neither does the early day motion linked to in the OP, (check for yourself). Only Conor Burns MP quoted on the third link to Guido says that.

Nor do I think anyone’s calling for the t-shirt makers to have their free speech taken from them. Free speech means people getting offended. It also means people expressing their displeasure at other people’s free speech. It is certainly not the case that a belief in free speech means never taking issue with what anyone says. I think the t-shirts are in poor taste, but I don’t want them banned.

Its weird. Everytime I think that maybe Thatcher was too hard on the unions these extremists turn up and remind me what so much of the Left used to be like in the 80′s. Vile Marxists like the tee-shirt crowd used to the union leaders.

@ Richard

“Nor do I think anyone’s calling for the t-shirt makers to have their free speech taken from them. ”

Heh. I just searched for “Thatcher t-shirt ban”, on the assumption that you were wrong about that. And I got precisely nothing interesting. Looks like the UK is slightly more awesome than I expected.

The suggestion that the t-shirts require funding of any kind is deeply odd – reminiscent of the weird anti-piracy advert at the start of some DVDs which claims that piracy funds drug-dealing (which, presumably, would be unprofitable without the cross-subsidy). In real life, when one sells t-shirts, one does so in order to *raise* money.

@Richard Carey #

The original post by Wallace doesn’t say that the t-shirts were tax-funded

Then what does this, from Wallace’s post, mean:

Until they go back to focusing their efforts on their proper, worthwhile mission, it is surely inappropriate for them to be using taxpayers’ money for partisan campaigns.

35

DUWC is not a trade union but it doesn’t surprise me that someone called ‘tory’ would conflate the two to make a totally irrelevant point. Indeed, if the teeshirts make a profit, the old dear would, cognitive impairment allowing, support the good work. She was a great supporter of Milton Friedman whose ethos was that there are no morals in markets.

@ 40 Robin,

It most likely refers to “a new campaign launch attended by Dennis Skinner MP and Natascha Engel MP …” which is mentioned above the bit you quoted. I know that you have your own idiosyncratic ways to interpret things. Other readers should read the post themselves, rather than rely on the OP or the Levett paraphrase service.

@ 36 Chaise,

assuming I was wrong? An easy mistake to make, I suppose …

@Richard Carey #40:

It most likely refers to “a new campaign launch attended by Dennis Skinner MP and Natascha Engel MP …” which is mentioned above the bit you quoted….Other readers should read the post themselves, rather than rely on the OP or the Levett paraphrase service.

I entirely agree that people should read the whole of the Wallace post. Then they’d notice that the *immediately* preceding paragraph to the one I quoted read:s

The DUWC may well do a lot of valuable work – certainly you can see the potential for an organisation offering impartial advice to jobseekers. However, it seems they’ve crossed a line a long time ago from helping unemployed workers to campaigning on a party political basis in a rather unpleasant way.

Which looks to be more likely to be the reference for the final paragraph.

We’ve done Thatcher too many times on LC I know… yawn.

But I ma surprised that so many here still have such hatred.

If some of you guys hatred for her is down to closing the coal mines: may I remind you of facts from previous threads :

* the mines were losing money – each worker’s wage was being added to with money paid by other tax payers. That could not go on for ever.
* unprofitability was not just a UK problem – Germany had no Thatcher but their coal employment also dropped 90% the same time that ours did
* it was just globalisation – it was cheaper to import coal. Just like today – when we all buy goods made in China because we get them cheaper than if they were made in the UK.

And even if your politics are that it is sometimes right for tax payers to pay the salary of workers in non-profitable industries:
* why was it logical to support those kind of dirty, hard jobs that have no long term benefit to the nation: rather than say create jobs in science for new technology projects, which have a chance of creating new opportunities (and new industries) in the UK ?

Thanks JV, no one asked to remind them of the facts but it’s no way egotistical of you to think we wanted to read your putrid vomit you normally spew up and pass off as informed opinion, though thanks anyway…yawn.

Just a thought

So you’re saying what I wrote is ‘the facts’ ?

Or if not – which bit do you disagree with?

@ 41 Richard

“assuming I was wrong? An easy mistake to make, I suppose …”

Heh. I’ll take that one on the chin.

@ 44 Just a thought

“Thanks JV, no one asked to remind them of the facts but it’s no way egotistical of you to think we wanted to read your putrid vomit you normally spew up and pass off as informed opinion”

Whereas, of course, we’re all agog to read more of your content-free personal attacks. I’ve always said the problem with the internet is that it doesn’t have enough aggressive idiots.

Hope they print out DeadHarryCole shirts #deadcole

P.S shouldn’t Cole be arrested for fucking tory cocklips Alexendra Swann? #15yearsolddude

@Tyler:

Shut
Up
Kike

Go
Back
To
Israel

Tories love nazism

This AshkeNAZI kike Tyler knows where to fuck off back to.

43

Simplistic analysis, the mining areas didn’t just support those directly working for the pits, whole communities and most of the industries/companies/shops relied totally on the services they provided to the pits and/or the wages to consume goods and services. Put simply large geographical areas were built on coal.

Steveb

You’re 100% right.

And one difference between the UK and Germany is that Germany has continued and does still today use public money to subsidise coal mining jobs – they gave something like 7 years notice of it coming to an end (it will end in 2015 – off the top of my head)

So the difference is that they have tried to ramp the industry down gently – presumably to give time for communities to adjust. It still ramped down fast – they lost 90% of their mining jobs over a decade or so.

I guess the question is whether that would have been possible in Germany if the trade unions had threatened and carried out national strikes: and had refused to contemplate the closue of any pits.

Whether the Tories would have done a gentle roll back like Germany did we will never know – because Scargill changed the game and closed that avenue to Maggie.

He forced confrontation.

JV. Interesting, but I think Thatch did want the confrontation with the old enemy. Scargill was probably the most inept union leader in the history of the TUC. He lead with his jaw – “hit me as hard as you can”. Thatch probably couldn’t believe her luck at having Scargill as adversary.

Cor, the moderators here clearly aren’t what they used to be.

52

Agreed, but the difference between Germany and UK coal is that the coal seams are becoming depleted in Germany, not so in the UK. In South Yorkshire, to take one example, overall, the cost of coal was cheaper (that’s with deducting the subsidy) than the cost of the imported coal which was subsequently purchased. There was absolutely no economic argument for closing most of the pits, because the aforementioned area was self financing.

In view of this, it suggests that Thatcher’s only goal was not as she stated, and that’s why she is so hated in South Yorkshire, and not just by former miners.

Steveb

Interesting claim. Have you any reliable sources that say South Yorkshire had been profitable?

Anyway – even if it had been, Scargill was firmly set against any closures and wouldn’t have co-operated with a ramp down leaving a rump in South Yorkshire operating, would he?

Steveb

This university study, The Decline of King Coal, shows that the decline of coal had already been strong in the 60′s and that it’s further decline in the 80′s and after was down to real world energy changes and not some secret scheme of Maggies.

57

I totally agree that there were many pits that had become costly to run and would never make anywhere near a profit never mind financing themselves, most in Nottinghamshire, for example, but I never stated anything other than in the area of South Yorkshire, overall, the pits were self-financing ie some made a profit and some a loss, and just like in many PLC, the loss-leaders were subsidized by those making the profits. Scargill most certainly would not consider any pit closure in South Yorkshire. Of course, Thatcher’s sole purpose was to punish Scargill, as been noted in previous posts, and that’s why most working-class hate her, she was prepared to bring down whole communities and the business therein for this alone, hardly a redeeming glory for a politician whose role, at least in theory, is to promote the good of the many.

As far as I can remember, the notion of green energy did not enter into Thatcher’s dialogue in the 1980s, it would be some time afterwards that greater concerns about climate change were raised, and taken seriously. Indeed Thatcher had taken the precaution of stock-piling coal before her plans to close so many pits were ‘accidently’ revealed. Moreover, after the massive number of closures, coal was imported from abroad, thus increasing it’s overall carbon footprint.

I’ll try and gather evidence for the financial costs of coal in South Yorkshire in the 1980s.

> I’ll try and gather evidence for the financial costs of coal in South Yorkshire in the 1980s.

Thanks. It would be interesting, assuming you’re right, whether the initial Tory plan for pit closures (to close 20 I think) included any SY ones.

But right-wingers can’t exist without lying and searching for scapegoats. Fantastic T-shirts and I have champagne ready for when the old crone finally goes.

And yet you call the “Mohammad” film disgraceful and disgusting!
HA!

And tell me…how many Thatcher family members and Conservatives went out and burnt, destroyed and butchered those involved in the making of these t-shirts for the ‘offence’ caused?

NONE!?

Wow. Well, lets leave that to the insanely delusional followers of ‘The Religion of Peace’

Massive numbers of posters are either too young to remember or are blinded by their own prejudices. The UDM sprang up because Scargill defied the rules of the NUM in calling a strike; secondly Nottinghamshire mines were, at the time, profitable while most Yorkshire ones were not.
@ James from Durham – I come from Durham too and *I* can remember the ’70s. Most lefties hate Thatcher because she stood up against the small violent leftie minority and won. The anti-democratic left cannot forgive her for making it so obvious that they are a tiny unrepresentative minority. Despite the massive “tribal” sympathy for miners in mining areas, which overwhelmingly backed Joe Gormley, a majority rejected Scargill – as did the Labour Party. He won 2.4% of the vote when he stood in Hartlepool.
For those interested in facts manufacturing employment in the UK fell by more under Brown than under Thatcher so why don’t you sell T-shirts saying Trade Unionists will dance on Brown’s grave? The taxpayer contribution to DUWC covers a portion of overheads so indirectly subsidises *all* the other activities of DUWC so Mark Wallace is closer to the truth that Tim Fenton. If taxpayer funding was withdrawn from DUWC it would have to cut down on its other activities because just cutting its CEO’s pay would not do anything to rental costs or ‘phone line rentals or business rates or …
Maybe Tim Fenton needs t learn something about business operating costs?

62

Actually, the mines in South Yorkshire were, overall, profitable, perhaps you can provide your source for this, I am certainly having problems sourcing the figures for South Yorkshire.

It is a laughable understatement that most lefties hated Thatcher, most of the working-class hated her, and I would say that the majority of the working class are not lefties.

I would also say that the devastation which Thatcher left in the pit areas was hardly a victory and, as you state, she was willing and able to cause this devastation just to win over a tiny, unrepresentative majority, I rest my case.

@ 62 steve b
Is it too much to ask you to answer what I actually said? I suppose so, since it doesn’t suit your purpose.
I said most Yorkshire mines were not profitable. To which you reply, without any evidence, that “mines in South Yorkshire were, overall, profitable”. Since Selby was a vast new mine which was highly profitable on the NCB’s accounting basis which excluded totally the cost of compensation for pneumoconiosis and understated depreciation and the cost of pensions, the latter may (or may not) be true but is NOT in any way a refutation of my comment. You might just as well say that the City of London had a balance of payments surplus in response to a comment that the UK ran a trade deficit throughout New Labour’s 13 years. The NCB lost $1.2 billion in 1983-4 before the strike despite a hidden subsidy from CEGB which paid a higher price for British coal than it would have for Colombian coal of slightly higher quality. Within two years of the end of the strike *fifteen* Yorkshire mines had been closed because the losses from keeping them open far exceeded the cost of putting all the miners on the dole. Another dozen in the next four years while a minority were kept open because the short-term cost of closure exceeded losses IF you ignored depreciation and pensions and pneumoconiosis.
I should prefer it if you did not lie about what I said. Mrs Thatcher did not ” cause this devastation just to win over a tiny, unrepresentative majority” and I certainly did not say that she did. She stood up for the rule of law against an evil megalomaniac who wrote that he wished to create a permanent unemployed underclass in order to foment revolution. You do need to learn the difference between a tint minority and a majority.
I grew up in a working-class town so I can tell you that most of the working-class did not hate Thatcher, except in your dreams. Millionaire Guardianistas like Polly Toynbee hate her because she demonstrated, as did John Major after her, that you don’t need rich parents, like Michael Foot or the Blairs, to rise to the top if you have talent and work hard.
Footnote: after the CEGB was privatised, National Power was more or less compelled to install a Flue Gas Desulphurisation plant at the Drax power station in response to Scandinavia’s complaints about the damage to their forests from acid rain due to the emissions from British power stations. The chairman of National Power stated publicly that he would prefer to close down all his older coal-fired plants than install FGD on them.

64
What is the contradiction in stating that the mines in South Yorkshire were profitable in reply to your statement that most mines in Yorkshire weren’t profitable? The rest of your comment is just waffle which I’m not even going to address.

And your notion that because you grew-up in a working-class town, you are some kind of representative for the working-class is, to put it bluntly, delusional.

And as I have already mentioned in a previous post, green energy did not figure in Thatcher’s dialogue, don’t conflate the miner’s strike in 1984 with the existing concerns about climate change.

“And yet you call the “Mohammad” film disgraceful and disgusting!
HA!

And tell me…how many Thatcher family members and Conservatives went out and burnt, destroyed and butchered those involved in the making of these t-shirts for the ‘offence’ caused?”

I vote for Truth’s Spokesman to be appointed as a film reviewer for a national newspaper. It’d be fantastic. “The Alien in Alien is treated like some inhuman monster. But does it kill people for not believing in its god? NO!!! Everyone who enjoyed this film is a hypocritical QUISLING!! Ask Salman Rushdie what he thinks about Aliens! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!!!1111111

4/10″

@ steve b
I am NOT discussing climate change when I point out that the price paid for coal from Selby was in excess of a realistic value because CEGB did not include the cost of the Drax FGD when calculating the price that it could afford.
As you know (assuming that you are intelligent enough to type your comments onto this website) South Yorkshire is not the whole of Yorkshire; one highly profitable mine can make more money than a number of others are losing so *ignoring the accounting fallacies that I hAve already pointed out* saying *without a shred of evidence* that South Yorkshire mines in aggregate were making a profit is NOT answering my point.
YOU are claiming a contradiction that does not exist to pretend that you are talking sense. I made a statement that you claimed an irrelevant unsubstantiated claim refuted – well, it did not. You are talking tripe.
I have never claimed to be a representative of the working class (because I am not, any more than Tony Blair), but I do actually know and talk to working class people. Anyone who claims that most working-class people revile Lady Thatcher are either stupidly ignorant or deliberate liars.
The rest of my comment was NOT waffle – you just have no remotely plausible answer. That does not surprise me in the least since you never worry too much about facts until someone challenges you about them.

67

Please read my comments @55 and @58, I am not going to repeat myself, what I will do is to reiterate that calculating the cost of unemployment for mine-workers and any subsequent claims for various industrial illness and pensions compared to the devastation Thatcher caused (which you call the win over of a minority) is nonsense. It brought down companies and small business and its’ impact created a massive increase of mental health problems. Millions of pounds were poured into Yorkshire, and Nottinghamshire mental health services under the Haz banner. And note, Thatcher closed most of the pits in Nottinghamshire, where you state that they were profitable. Indeed, you have not provided me with evidence that those pits were profitable, I can’t find the figures and did ask you for your source, but all you have done is deride me for having no evidence, pot, kettle comes to mind.

I note that you seem to be reverting back to debating the wording of old posts, I seem to remember you doing this on another thread, but it doesn’t fool most on LC., this is the sign of someone who hasn’t got anything to say.

Finally, your comment that you talk to working-class people sounds like the statement of a GCSE student studying sociology.

@ steve b
It is an easily demonstrated fact that Mrs Thatcher did NOT close down most Nottinghamshire mines (she never closed any mines herself, anyway). When she resigned 18 out of 28 Nottinghamshire mines were still open.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3514549.stm
The largest number of mines were closed under Labour governments over 700 small pits under Attlee post-war against 300-odd in 13 years 1951-64 followed by 277 in 6 years of Wilson’s 1964-70 Labour government. The fastest relative rate waas under New Labour 1997-2010 when more than two-thirds of the remaining mines (including 8 out of 9 in Nottinghamshire) were closed
http://www.ncm.org.uk/docs/collections-documents/statistics-in-mining.pdf?sfvrsn=2
It is also easily established that Scargill called an illegitimate strike contrary to the rules of his own union and used a vast number thugs to attack and intimidate miners who had voted not to strike – so many that Nottinghamshire police had to call for reinforcements from the Met to help protect the victims of Scargill’s mob. Some mines were not reopened for safety reasons due to lack of maintenance. The damage was of Scargill’s making, not Mrs Thatcher’s.
Unfortunately, you don’t seem to care about the facts when they don’t suit you.

69

Nothing of what you say is upheld by the references you give, indeed, the first article expressly states that there was coal left, but by that stage new markets had been accessed, we are actually debating about 1984 not years priorto or afterwards, please keep to the scope of the debate.

Two pits were closed because of lack of maintenence but NACODS did not go on strike, the majority of the pits closed in South Yorkshire were viable and had issues with safety.

As for your remarks about having to eventually call in the Met, you must really be naieve, I suppose you are still appalled about those nasty miners attacking the poor police at Orgreave. And that nice Neil Greatrex, president of the Union of Democratic Workers, (Mrs. Thatcher’s favourite) has just been found guilty of defrauding a charity of £150k.

In the final analysis, Thatcher, according to your own report, won over a small minority, and that involved the total devastation in financial terms of whole communities and the commercial sector therein, not to mention the mental health of those communities.

@ steve b
Try *reading* the article. In fact everything I said is supported by the references I gave. The first one gives a complete schedule of pit closures up to 2004 so you can see that my statements are correct – most Nottinghamshire mines were still open when Mrs Thatcher resigned; the schedule in the second shows the mines and mineworkers every five years (except in the 1940s). [The 277 closures in Wilson's first term comes a Welsh miners' blog but is clearly reasonable]. When it talks about pits being closed when there sometimes was coal left it is talking about actions that started two years after Mrs Thatcher retired. How about letting the facts get in the way of your rants just once in a while?
Nasty thugs attacking working miners and their homes families and even pets – yes that did upset me. Updated from the half-brick to lumps of concrete and iron railings which made a closeish approximation to a spear. Mostly reported in the press and BBC but I’ve heard eye-witness accounts of a few. So you’re not fooling me.
NACODS did not go on strike wishing to make sure that the pits would be safe to reopen but Scargill’s mobs picketed mines so in a number of cases (I don’t have exact numbers) they were unable to work and the first two collieries to close were due to safety reasons. That was totally Scargill’s fault.
Incidentally, I am still waiting for Arthur Scargill to be questioned about tax evasion on his £50,000 PER ANNUM of benefits in kind. He was been living in a luxury flat in London for 30 years at the union’s expense – current rentals for similar flats are around £1000 per week (leasehold prices £1m or so), and that doesn’t include his car other perks. While miners went hungry Scargill lived like a millionaire.

71

The exact number of pits closed because of safety problems was two, the rest of your ‘evidence’ outlines only the pits which closed (I already am aware of this)and 10 pits out of 28 is more than a third. I notice that you are falling back on your semantics driven debate, of course Thatcher did not personally close the pits, but you cannot give me the figures which show that most Nottinghamshire pits were profitable, not all left open across all coalfields were profitable and many which were closed were very profitable. This is the cornerstone of the debate which you have been attempting to shift to another focus.

The incident in of the deaths you quote did not happen in South Yorkshire and it was shocking, but you cannot hold thousands of miners responsible for that, although it appears that you seem to be attempting to.

It’s wonderful how right wing media can shape the views of the country as a whole, and I’m sure you believe what is written, after all, Scargill became a good target, can you imagine the mass media attention if it was he who had defrauded a miner’s charity and not Greatrex, who has been found guilty of the charges against him, Scargill has not, despite several attempt to discredit him. It might be a good idea to base your comments on facts not unsubstantiated attacks (remember the libel laws) and we know how you cherish law-abiding behaviours.

@ steve b
Your attempts to hide the fact that you were deliberately lying have become self-defeating when you admit that you knew the numbers of pit closures since that 10 out of 28is *not* most.
” you cannot hold thousands of miners responsible for that”: of course I can as can any honest man with an IQ greater than his shoe size. All the violence was, or stemmed, from Scargill’s thugs attacking and/or trying (often succeeding) to intimidate workers – just whom do you think anyone should for those deaths? And when did Castleford cease to be in Yorshire?
It is not just balderdash to suggest that profitable pits were closed except for safety reasons it is completely ridiculous to suggest that very profitable pits were closed – MacGregor’s job was to reduce NCB losses so that was the last thing he would have done. That not just a lie, it is a pathetically transparent one.
I don’t need right-wing media (in fact I don’t read right-wing media) to know that Scargill lived in a luxury flat, which he rented in his own name since the Corporation of London refused to let those flats to companies and that he had to demonstrate an income at investment banker level to do so (such information is not secret – it could be gleaned the Barbican lettings office); if he had been a company director earning over £8,000 pa his employer would have to declare the rent it paid on his behalf to the Inland Revenue but since the union is not a company it was not obliged to do so. If he has been paying tax on the payment for the flat out of his after-tax income then it must be at 45%. Interesting that all the NUM’s assets were moved abroad to escape confiscation but it was still able to pay Scargill’s rent.
You claim not to have found it difficult to find numbers for South Yorkshire where the giant Selby pit was subsidising the rest of the region: likewise I have not yet been able to find precise numbers for Nottinghamshire although I do remember they were reported at the time to be the only profitable region prior to the opening of Selby. The only mention I have on the web supports that
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/changhyun/ThatcherPolicies4.html

73

Wow, I asked a question @63 and after a lot of waffle and irrelevant information you now say you too cannot find the information either.

And I don’t know why you think that I am lying about not knowing the number of pits closed after 1984 when there are dozens of references on the internet.

I have been clear from the beginning, I am discussing the profitability of the South Yorkshire coalfields, and, after your input to the debate, Nottinghamshire. So I am puzzled as to why you keep making reference to Selby, perhaps you need to refer to a map (hint, Selby might not be in South Yorkshire)

And, just to clarify your remarks about Scargil, are you accusing him of criminal wrong-doing?

@ steve b
I said you were lying *because* there were references which showed clearly the opposite of what you said.
Since the South Yorkshire coalfield was being mined for more than six hundred years before the metropolitan county of South Yorkshire was created it can not possibly have derived its name therefrom. The South Yorkshire coalfield covered parts of the West Riding and parts of the East Riding in the southern part of Yorkshire, hence its name. Selby is 12 miles south of York in what was formerly the East Riding. The Selby mine is part of the “Barnsley seam” which is the principal seam in the South Yorkshire coalfield and was proclaimed to be part of the South Yorkshire coalfield when the NCB started digging it.
Your contribution to the debate about the profitability of the South Yorkshire coalfield comprises one unsupported assertion, zero hard facts and numerous smears, slurs and slanders of which all the checkable have been shown to be lies.

75

When I say South Yorkshire, that is exactly what I mean, and the debate has been about the 1980s, clearly you do not recognize what is being debated. Perhaps you are a descendant of the monkey hangers, they couldn’t recognize what was in front of them either.

@ steve b
Next you move the goalposts perhaps you’ll drop them in the swimming pool. You said that “Scargill most certainly would not consider any pit closure in South Yorkshire” – Woolley Colliery is in the new county of West Yorkshire. So you seem to be saying that Scargill would have let his own pit close but not any in the artificial “metropolitan county of South Yorkshire”.
In reply to “while most Yorkshire ones were not” you said “Actually, the mines in South Yorkshire were, overall, profitable” and you are now saying that you mean the “metropolitan county of South Yorkshire” not the South Yorkshire coalfield.
No, you cannot simultaneously claim you were debating my comment and that “South Yorkshire” meant the metropolitan county not the coalfield. Especially *after* you said “I am discussing the profitability of the South Yorkshire coalfields,”
There is a word for you “liar”
I shall not bother with any further posts from you since you now have three hits which means “out”

77

It appears that you find it difficult to debate the substance of any posts, I have noticed before that your comments are driven by a focus on semantics and irrelevant details interspersed by insults, indeed I have to congratulate you on the amount of words you generate that say absolutely nothing.

I notice, however, that you are wise enough not to make unfounded accusations against Scargill, slander, btw, relates to the spoken word,

I would also like to add that all coalfields will join-up over boundaries, there is a rich seam from Doncaster to Skegness.