From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Latest coalfield fun...
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:46:21 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

People may (or may not) have heard that the Government, on Tuesday,
announced the closure of an additional 31 coalfields, with a loss of
another 30,000 jobs (directly, plus an estimated 50,000 - 100,000 in
other semi-related industries as a knock-on effect).  Now, anyone who
has been following s.c.b during the past few weeks will know that this
REALLY pisses me off.  However, I've expounded all my arguments, I
don't really have time to do that again, and anyway I know that there's
nothing I could say that would convince the people who normally take
the other side in here.  What pisses me off even more than the closures
is the methodology, and some of the other factlets which are emerging.

Now, as I said, I don't have time for another major war, so I'm going
to try to simply present the story so far, and then you other folks, if
you like, can argue about it.  The various bits were taken from the
Guardian and from BBC news.  Days mentioned are when I spotted the 
various items, and so may be off by one.  Basic sequence, and major
events, are correct.  My own feelings show through, sorry about that.

Tuesday:  The government announces the closures, the first of which
were to be today (16 Oct), which will leave about 10 pits working in
Britain.  Parliament is not in session at the moment, so this was
never debated in Parliament.  Just done, apparently by the Cabinet (but
see below).  In closing the 31 pits, they will be effectively
abandoning 300 years worth of coal reserves; by comparison, known gas
reserves in this country are 30 years worth.  A large proportion of
fuel needs will be imported in future.  (Anyone remember the oil crisis
of the early 70's?  Do we *really* want to be totally reliant on these
folks being nice guys?)

Wednesday:  Stock market falls (modestly), as does the pound on the
money market.  Market analysts make comments to the effect that the
coal announcement was a factor; that it will certainly be profitable in
the short term, but that it is quite likely to have devastating future
effects on British industry.  Scargill announces that he'll call a
strike ballot.

Thursday:  The NUM (Scargill's miners) and NACODS (mine safety workers
union, basically) apply for an injunction to prevent the closures.  The
grounds are that the government has failed to obey various laws
relating to the rights of the workers to be consulted and informed.
(Both British, and EC regulations.)  No one actually disputes this.

However, the laws as written are 'retrospective in application'.  That
is, under the letter of the law, the workers would have to wait for the
mines to be closed, and then file a case based on the fact that they
hadn't been consulted.  The unions' argument is that if you do that in
this case, by the time the case could be decided the closed mines would
deteriorate such that they couldn't be reopened, even if the unions
won.  Thus, imposing this technicality would violate the principle of
'natural justice'.

Meanwhile, the president of the UDM ('Maggie's tame non-striking
miners', who THOUGHT they'd been given promises by the government for
helping to break the last coal strike, and have just discovered they
were wrong) has occupied one of the Nottinghamshire mines slated for
closure today (16th), along with a group of friends.  He says he'll
stay 'as long as he can'.

Friday:  The judge hearing the NUM/NACOD case has granted an temporary
injunction against the closures, so that the arguments may be more
fully considered.  Scargill has announced that he is NOT going to hold
a strike ballot, because he believes that general public pressure might
actually be sufficient at present and that a strike would not be the
best way of solving the problem if other methods will work.

Meanwhile, the hot story of the day (I said 'see below', see above).
Originally, the plans were to announce the closures today (to take
effect from today), and so the Cabinet meeting to discuss them was
scheduled for yesterday (Thursday).  When the announcement was
rescheduled, the Cabinet meeting was not.

That is to say, in very simple easy to understand terms, the
announcement of the closures was made 2 days before the Cabinet
discussion about whether they would be a good idea.  Indeed, a number
of Cabinet Ministers were not aware of the closures until they read
about them in the newspapers.  It's not just Parliament that didn't get
to discuss them.  It appears to have been a mini-cabal of Major,
Heseltine, and (maybe) Lamont, who simply decided they needed something
to do.  THIS is the bit that REALLY, REALLY, PISSES ME OFF!!!  (Even
the Telegraph seems to have been mildly annoyed by this, so I can't be
alone here.)  I mean, even Thatcher used to PRETEND that she consulted
her Cabinet, even if she didn't make a habit of listening to them.

Now, things may get interesting, because while the government has so far
shown no signs of moderating its position, they have annoyed a fair
cross-section of their own supporters, including a sizeable number of
their own MPs.  If it comes to a crunch, I'll bet these Tory rebels
will decide that their own jobs are more important than their principles,
but, still, there is some hope.  (As an aside, I've never heard the 
phrase 'acceptable levels of unemployment' used by anyone who didn't,
themselves, have a cushy and secure job.)

And, just for a crowning glory, another one of life's little ironies.
Tis the time of year for the awards given out by the Prince of Wales,
to those commercial enterprises which are being exemplary in performing
(non-business) services to their communities (e.g. voluntary work).
One of these awards went to the staff and management of a particular
mid-sized coal pit, for volunteer services outside working hours.  It's
being shut down.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british