Democratic Palestine : 7 (ص 22)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 7 (ص 22)
- المحتوى
-
to neuter the trade unions with the
Industrial Relations Act failed because
of the policy of non-compliance adopted
by the Trade Congress. The groundwork
for that act in part was a campaign by the
Tory media to convince the nation that
trade unions were «too powerful» and
therefore warranted laws to curtail their
activities.
One of the first overt indications of
what the Tories were up to was the Rid-
ley Report of 1978, the implications of
which are only now becoming apparent.
Published in The Economist of 27th May
1978, over a year before Thatcher's
election, it suggested six points to be
considered: (1) The build-up of coal
stocks. (2)Plans to import large
amounts of coal. (3) To encourage road
haulage employers to take on non-union
labour. (4) For dual coal / oil-fired power
stations. (5) Changes to social security
payments to strikers. (6) A large mobile
police force. All these points have in fact
been carried out to the letter as the min-
ers and their families have discovered to
their cost.
Since Thatcher's election in June
1979, we have witnessed the introduc-
tion of anti-trade union legislation, not on
a wholemeal basis like the infamous
Industrial Relations Act, but on a
piecemeal basis, culminating in total to
legislation far more draconian, legisla-
tion that allows the judiciary to interfere
in the democracy of our union and to
bankrupt it for non-compliance with their
diktat. We have also seen the frightening
increase in the power of the police as
well as a substantial increase in their
numbers. One of the first policies to be
carried out by the Tories was to award
the police a handsome wage increase.
The Nuclear Catch
In December 1979, the Secretary of
State for Energy announced the govern-
ment’s nuclear power intentions which
were to construct one nuclear power sta-
tion of the pressurised water type
(P.W.R.) every year for ten years from
1982 on; at the same time they
authorised the construction of two
advanced gas-cooled reactors at
Heysham and Thorness. It is estimated
that one P.W.R. will remove 2 1/2 million
tonne capacity from the industry which in
turn will mean 5,000 miners’ jobs.
Twelve such projects therefore will
remove up to 60,000 miners’ jobs.
On 23rd October 1979, two months
before the announcement of their nuc-
lear programme, a leaked cabinet docu-
ment noted that «a nuclear programme
22
would have the advantage of removing a
substantial portion of electricity genera-
tion from disruption by industrial action
by coalminers and transport workers».
Also in 1979, Mrs. Thatcher was heard
to comment: «We will rid Britain of every
vestige of socialism». We must regard
this as a major threat to almost every
democratic gain the working people
have enjoyed and struggled for in the
past.
It is quite clear that one of the
weapons the Tories are going to use to
smash the miners is the increased use of
nuclear power. It is not just a question of
the immediate closure of the five named
pits or even the much talked about «20»
pits which represents Mr. Mc-Gregor’s
so-called 12% uneconomic capacity,
but along term attack which would result
in the loss of over half our industry and
up to a hundred thousand jobs up to the
turn of the century. We must also recog-
nise that many jobs outside the industry
will also be lost, like railmen, busmen,
transport and mining machinery to name
but a few.
It is extremely difficult to argue a
case for nuclear power on economic
grounds or social preference. Contrary
to Central Electricity Board claims, nuc-
lear power is far more expensive than
good old king coal, and it is plain for all to
see the problems being created by nuc-
lear waste, its disposal and the fact that
it is being washed up on our beaches
and polluting our seas to the extent
where the leukemia incidence in some
areas is considerably above the national
average. What of the future? How will we
dispose of nuclear power stations when
they have completed their useful life?
Will they remain an edifice to man’s folly
like Three Mile Island at Harrisburg in
the U.S.A.? Three Mile Island exposes
the risks of possible catastrophic situa-
tions which would pale into insignifi-
cance any mining disaster the world has
ever known. Are we to sacrifice an
immense indigenous asset for this form
of generation which only has two by-pro-
ducts: nuclear waste and the materials
for expanding nuclear arsenals.
It is fact that the U.S.A. has aban-
doned many nuclear projects on
grounds of expense and danger to the
environment, and is once again basing
its energy policy on coal. Many countries
are also basing their energy policies on
coal even though they enjoy no appreci-
able coal reserves, unlike Britain which
is built on coal.
Returning to the economic argu-
ments for closing pits, even a moder-
ately close scrutiny of National Coal
Board and government claims proves
them to be without any real foundation. If
we can keep our comments to the so-
called 12% uneconomic capacity which
they claim is costing the veritable tax-
payer some £275 millions per annum,
closures on this scale would mean the
loss of 40,000 miners’ jobs and probably
up to 35,000 other jobs outside, but con-
nected to the industry, it would also
mean the loss of over £500 million worth
of coal each year. The cost of redun-
dancy payments, unemployment
benefits and transfer costs, where and if
they apply, together with the loss to the
exchequer of income tax revenue,
national insurance contributions and so
on, will it is estimated add up to about
£345 million per annum. It is quite clear
that to close pits would cost twice as
much as to keep them open.
We must also not forget that the
majority of these pits are rendered «un-
economic» by lack of investment, the
greater part of investment being
pumped into the super pits with the view
to privatisation at some later date.
It is generally accepted, even by the
National Coal Board, that the British
deep mined coal industry is one of, if not
the most, efficient industry in the world
as far as actual production cost is con-
cerned, but it does face unfair competi-
tion by highly subsidised foreign mar-
kets and a market suppressed by Tory
economic policies.
Now returning to the Tory political.
thinking behind all this. It is quite clear
that the miners are facing a two-pronged
attack: first the use of nuclear power to
decimate the industry down to one of
super pits, and the other, facing the
trade union movement as a whole, the
repressive anti-trade union laws being
introduced and used on an ever increas-
ing scale, particularly by the sequestra-
tion of assets.
It is apparent to many in the trade
union and labour movement in this coun-
try, and indeed abroad, that a victory to
the miners is paramount to the interests
of the working class as a whole,
although they may not be in possession
of all the facts about the industry that
have brought about the present situa-
tion.
Many, | think, hoped for the day
when the miners would take up the
gauntlet with all the power at their dis-
posal. Many doubted the wisdom of
commencing industrial action in March
with the ssring and summer in front of
them, but ::= miners were quite clearly - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 7
- تاريخ
- ديسمبر ١٩٨٤
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed