So this is the long-term survival of British coal
Maybe they plan to use the 'Big Brother' method to close the last few pits,
with the public voting each year
By Mark Steel
18 July 2002
Now, when you hear that a coal mine is being shut down, it's like hearing
that an old actor from Z Cars or Upstairs, Downstairs has died and you
think, "Blimey, I had no idea they were still going in the first place."
It's just been announced that Selby is to shut, which leaves eight to go.
Maybe the plan is to close down the last few using the Big Brother method,
with the public voting each year for which one they want to shut. Then the
last one will be declared the winner, and the miners from that pit will win
a prize and go on to give consumer advice on cable television.
And yet I remember distinctly, throughout the 1984 strike, Margaret Thatcher
and her Cabinet repeating the mantra that their proposals were "the best
plans ever for British coal'', guaranteed to "ensure the long-term survival
of the industry''. Which, in retrospect, doesn't appear to have been
entirely honest. Even Osama bin Laden didn't have the audacity to announce
his scheme was "the best plan ever for New York skyscrapers''.
Arthur Scargill was vilified and ridiculed for suggesting there was a
long-term plan to reduce the industry to eighty pits, but all along the
Government must have been cackling like the Joker in Batman: "Eighty, he
says? Aha ha, the fool, how little he knows. HA HA HA.'' Strangely, the
decline of the pits is often blamed on Scargill, so much so that most people
under 25 must think the miners' strike was when Mrs Thatcher wanted to
produce loads of coal, but Scargill demanded the closure of every mine
possibly so he could use them as underground bunkers from where he could
plot to take over the world.
And many of the articles about the closure of Selby have repeated the line
that Scargill guaranteed the strike would fail by calling it in the summer
of 1984. Which ignores he fact that the strike began in response to the
closures, and that was when they were announced. So what should he have
done? Even Scargill was unlikely to call the strike six months earlier,
declaring: "We demand the Government withdraws whatever it is they're
thinking of announcing next year."
The other favourite to accompany the latest closure is its inevitability as
part of the unstoppable march of progress. I'm sure Stalin said the same,
when he starved millions of peasants in the drive to fill Russia with wonky
factories: "It's a sad but indisputable aspect of modern life that there is
no longer a demand for peasants. The world price of peasants has fallen
dramatically in recent times and we would be failing in our duties if we
continued to pour food into these uneconomic units. But believe me, the
starvation plans we have announced amount to the best plans ever for the
Russian peasant industry.''
Far from being inevitable, the closures, including this latest one, are
conscious decisions made by human beings. For example, on the same day as
the Selby announcement, British Nuclear Fuels admitted that clearing up
their problems with "waste" will cost £1.9bn more than expected. Just like
that. Don't they even have to get three estimates? Was there a bloke with a
clipboard prodding isotopes and going: "Oh dear oh dear oh dear, you've got
radiation coming through from your boiler in here. I mean, I can patch it up
with plutonium for now, but in six months you'll have the same thing back
again. Best to do it properly. It's an extra £1.9bn, but it'll save you in
the long run."
The total charge of £2.35bn, it is said, will be "added to the £45bn of
undiscounted liabilities...'' I can't tell you what it says after that
because every time I get to £45bn I can't help stopping and yelling: "HOW
MUCH?" Yet strangely, no one has suggested the inevitability of closing down
the nuclear industry. Even though I'd guess that £1.9bn more than expected
on clearing up waste just creeps into the category of "uneconomic".
The miners' strike may have been defeated, but that doesn't mean the
principles behind it were wrong. Or that we'd be better off if it had never
taken place. Apart from anything else, it did so much to bring together
disparate groups in British society. Yorkshire miners would appear at
rallies in London and make speeches that went: "'Appen there's coil int'
grarnd fot 40 year and we're art solid but fot one scab but we need
donations like for us snap.'' And everyone would clap, whispering: "Is he
for the strike or against it, this bloke?'' And the whole strike was
justified when a miners' brass band was chosen to lead the 1985 Gay Pride
march. At which it's to be hoped someone wandered up to the conductor and
asked: "Is there any chance you could do 'Relax' by Frankie Goes to
Hollywood?"
Whereas even if nuclear plants had brass bands, no one would dare ever book
them for a march, as you'd have nightmares imagining the trombonist coming
up afterwards and saying: "It's about our expenses – only they've turned out
to be a little bit more than expected.''
There is a time in the life of every problem when it is big enough to see,
yet small enough to solve (Mike Leavitt)
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
