Do You Agree with the View That the Prime Cause of the Miners' Strike in 1984 Was the Conservative Government's Determination to Reduce Trade Union Power?

In: Historical Events

Submitted By zt3600
Words 1422
Pages 6
Do you agree with the view that the prime cause of the miners' strike in 1984 was the Conservative government's determination to reduce trade union power? - (40 - pg. 142 M. Lynch)

On the 6th of March 1984, the National Coal Board announced that, in order to reduce government subsidies to the coal industry, twenty coal pits were to be closed. Six days later, Arthur Scargill, the leader of the NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) announced that the regional strikes that were already occurring across Yorkshire, were to be made nationwide. This exorbitant reaction was felt necessary, when taking into account that tens of thousands of jobs were to be lost. Whole communities thrived and relied on coal in northern England, southern Wales, and parts of Scotland. These communities were under threat. What followed onwards was a twelve month mass strike by the miners and their union, with the Conservative government led by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, already prepared, by stockpiling coal and coke. Regardless, the UK still suffered mass disruption in power. Many were effected. The 1980's was the first generation in the UK where almost every British household had a television. The miners' strike was broadcasted live, and within it, showed the police brutality, the miners' violence, and the chaos that it begat. The footage showed two forces fighting each other, similar to the two forces in politics; Arthur Scargill of the NUM, against Ian McGregaor (Head of the National Coal Board) and Margaret Thatcher. Two very stubborn personalities were battling for which direction Britain should head in. Thatcher's government thought these undemocratic unions were too powerful. It was clear that the trade unions still had power and had the force to change. The UK relied on its workers to deliver service, and the workers had the power to disrupt service, under the will of the…...

Similar Documents

How Far Do You Agree with the View That the Development of the Cold War Between the Usa and the Soviet Union in the Years 1945-53 Was Primarily Due to Traditional Great Power Rivalry?

...How far do you agree with the view that the development of the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Union in the years 1945-53 was primarily due to traditional great power rivalry? The development of the Cold War can be viewed as being caused for several different reasons. The great power rivalry, ideological differences and personality traits cited as the main causes for the war, but ideology and personality also contain flaws that prove the great power rivalry was the primary cause. The main argument for the development of the Cold War is that it was created by the traditional great power rivalry. Source 7 argues Russia was the “most ruthless of world-conquering ideologies.” Added to by another point in Source 7 that contests Russia suffered from insecurity “who saw ‘security’ only in the total destruction of rival power.” Both of these points proving Russia were determined to destroy their rivals and can be viewed as a dangerous force when faced with opposition. This is supported by Source 7 where it claims “the USA would have to ‘contain’ its pressure by uncompromising resistance, even if Russia had not been communist” This point arguing ideology was irrelevant to the start of the Cold War, also shown by Source 8 where it claims “Leaders and citizens saw their countries acting for much broader purposes than the mere advancement of national interests.” However, the great power rivalry was even more apparent in conferences towards the end of......

Words: 414 - Pages: 2

Do You Agree with the View That the Prime Cause of the Miners Strike in 1984 Was the Conservative Governments Determination to Reduce Trade Union Power?

...Do you agree with the view that the prime cause of the miners’ strike in 1984 was the conservative governments determination to reduce trade union power? The fact that the Conservative government wanted to reduce trade union power was indeed a factor which led to the miners’ strike in 1984 but not necessarily the biggest one. It is relevant to state that the Thatcher Government was concerned over the general power that the unions held and had taken action to curb union powers with the introduction of the Employment Act 1982. Source 1 highlights the fact that the strike was the culmination of a long conflict between the Conservative Party and the mineworkers union. The National Union of Minors (NUM) was the strongest and most powerful union and it was widely accepted that it had been responsible for bringing down the Edward Heath Conservative Government following the minors’ strike of 1973-74. In 1972, the NUM led by Arthur Scargill had put forward a joint bid to gain wage increase and to highlight the increasing number of pit closures that threatened its members livelihood. In order to succeed Scargill had used minors from across the country to bring the movement of coal to a standstill. Heath believed that the government would survive the strike longer than the miners. He cut electricity which led to ordinary people being without light and heating for long periods. Heath held an election as to who ran the country, the miners or the government. The answer of the......

Words: 795 - Pages: 4

Do You Agree with the View That in the Years 1515-1525 Henry Viii Wholly Surrendered Power in Government to Cardinal Wolsey?

...Do you agree with the view that in the years 1515-1525 Henry VIII wholly surrendered power in government to Cardinal Wolsey? To a certain extent within 
Source 4 (by J.J. Scarisbrick 1968) supports the idea that possibly Henry VIII actually did surrender power over to Wolsey. The evidence within the source that suggests this possibly for being the truth is ‘a self-indulgent King had wholly surrendered the cares of the state into the Cardinals hands’. To further support this case, it is clear that Wolsey was extremely powerful, he had vast amounts of bishoprics (Archbishop of Canterbury, Tournai, Durham just to name a few) and was the head of things such as the Star Chamber where Wolsey got himself heavily involved with. This is shown when you compared the number of cases Wolsey took on (120) compared to that of Henry VII who dealt with only 12. Also Wolsey had control of all of the state finances and could make large changes to things such as the taxation system he was able to introduce a new form of tax known as the ‘Subsidy’ which was more popular since it meant the poor payed far less tax than previously than with the old 15’s and 10’s taxation method. This new taxation method allowed Wolsey to pay for king’s foreign affairs. As well as this ‘subsidy’, since Wolsey had such significant power he was able to also raise considerable amounts of capital through other means, such as through ‘benevolences’ and enforced loans from the nobility, which raised £200,000 in 1522.......

Words: 902 - Pages: 4

Margerat Thatcher and the Miners Strike

...he fact that the Conservative government wanted to reduce trade union power was indeed a factor which led to the miners’ strike in 1984 but not necessarily the biggest one. It is relevant to state that the Thatcher Government was concerned over the general power that the unions held and had taken action to curb union powers with the introduction of the Employment Act 1982. Source 1 highlights the fact that the strike was the culmination of a long conflict between the Conservative Party and the mineworkers union. The National Union of Minors (NUM) was the strongest and most powerful union and it was widely accepted that it had been responsible for bringing down the Edward Heath Conservative Government following the minors’ strike of 1973-74. In 1972, the NUM led by Arthur Scargill had put forward a joint bid to gain wage increase and to highlight the increasing number of pit closures that threatened its members livelihood. In order to succeed Scargill had used minors from across the country to bring the movement of coal to a standstill. Heath believed that the government would survive the strike longer than the miners. He cut electricity which led to ordinary people being without light and heating for long periods. Heath held an election as to who ran the country, the miners or the government. The answer of the electorate was not what he expected and the Conservatives lost power with the mood of the public showing some sympathy towards the unions. It might be considered...

Words: 312 - Pages: 2

Do You Agree with the View That the Sino-Soviet Split Was Caused Primarily by the Political Rivalry of Khrushchev and Mao?

...Do you agree with the view that the Sino Soviet Split was caused primarily by the political rivalry of Khrushchev and Mao? The Sino Soviet split occurred largely due to the ideological issues that Mao and Khrushchev had, having vastly opposite ideas on the nature of Revolutions. However, through this you largely see the clash of their personalities and how they differed vastly seen through the Soviet speech in which Khrushchev seriously offended Mao by announcing de-Stalinisation. National security was the basis of much strain as neither country felt safe mainly due to the advancement of nuclear weapons. Both countries had many attempts in order to gain stability ahead of the other such as the Korean War, where the USSR forced Mao to pay a large sum of money in order to pay back the USSR for its aid. However, this caused further rifts in the relationship. Due to the shared border of China and the USSR, territorial disputes were not unheard of however, throughout the Cold War, this became a larger issue as each wanted to assert more power. Although relations with the US was a factor involved in the split, it did little but cause tension and demonstrate the further rift that was happening between the two countries through the various meetings with presidents. Ideological differences were pivotal in the breakdown of Sino-Soviet relations as they marked a significant flaw in the relationship; this was mainly due to their idea of the Nature of a Revolution. The Soviets believed......

Words: 1709 - Pages: 7

The American Civil War Was an Irrepressible Conflict. Do You Agree?

...‘The American Civil War was an irrepressible conflict.’ Do you agree? The American Civil war is one of the most studied topics in American history. Yet still, a definitive answer cannot be found as to why the war broke out. Many of the interpretations can be grouped into two major schools of thought: the irrepressible conflict or the Blundering Generation. It was certainly true that the North and South were becoming increasingly different during this period. Slavery being the most fundamental of these, however there was also variances in the economies and culture. This would support the idea that the war was inevitable as the differences were too great. However, it can be argued that radically different societies can co-exist without going to war. Instead, a series of mistakes and misjudgements were made by blundering politicians. There are numerous examples of this; the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act to name just a few. In my view, the American Civil War was an irrepressible conflict since compromise on the slavery issue was impossible. Blundering politicians acted as catalysts to ignite the flames of war, however they did not create the differences which acted as the foundation for the irrepressible conflict. The issue of slavery is often cited as the most significant cause of the war. By 1860 the issue of slavery had become too great and compromise was impossible. As Frederick Douglass stated, ‘the more the issue is settled, the more it needs......

Words: 2087 - Pages: 9

How Far Do You Agree That the Main Reason for the Fall of the Provisional Government Was the Skill and Determination of Lenin in 1917?

...To an extent it is valid to say that Lenin's skill and determination as leader of the Bolsheviks was the main reason for the overthrow of the Provisional government. Although, there are significant other factors that contributed to the downfall of the government, such as the weakness the government it in itself possessed, the misjudgment and mistakes it made, and other contributing factors, such as the influential role of Trotsky, which helped impact on the eventual overthrow of the government. Evidence suggests that one of the main reasons for the fall of the Provisional government, was the weaknesses it in itself possessed. For example, the dual authority government can be seen as a weakness because it was not an elected body, and came into being as a rebellious committee of the old duma, refusing to disband at the Tsar's order. This meant it consequently lacked legitimate authority as a result. It had no constitutional claim upon the loyalty of Russian people and no natural fund of good will to rely on, meaning it was judged entirely on how it dealt with the nations problems, making it vulnerable from the start. Its second major weakness was that its authority was limited by its unofficial partnership with the Petrograd Soviet. To begin with there was considerable co-operation between the two, with some people (e.g.- Kerensky) being members of both bodies. The soviet did not set out to be an alternative government, and regarded its role as supervisory, checking that......

Words: 2202 - Pages: 9

‘a Cold War Between East and West Was Inevitable After 1945.’ Do You Agree?

...‘A cold war between East and West was inevitable after 1945.’ Do you agree? Up until May 7th 1945 Germany had been Europe’s main defence against Russian hegemony. Once the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany was complete, this defence no longer existed and the USSR held onto the territorial gains it had made during its monumental war effort. Germany’s fate had not yet been decided but in the meantime it had been divided into four areas by the former Allies. The tension between the remaining post war Superpowers, the United States and The Soviet Union were ever increasing. Britain became economically and militarily dependant on the US as its empire floundered. British rhetoric and ‘scaremongering was born of Britain’s desire to keep America involved in Europe.’ Stalin began to consolidate the Soviet area and the anti-Western language of the Soviet regime became just as scathing as Churchill’s. The ‘Iron Curtain’ was now in place and America, Britain and Russia were coming to realise that their respective ideologies were for the most part irreconcilable. Although it is often said that nothing is inevitable, there are times when the consequences of decisions and policies gather momentum and become an unstoppable force. By considering their differences and how the individual iron willed leaders involved expressed their intentions and shaped their stances against each other it will become apparent that the consequences and the forces that the East and the West put in motion made the......

Words: 2384 - Pages: 10

How Far Do You Agree That the Most Important Cause of the Revolution in February 1917 Was the Great War

...AS History How far do you agree that the most important cause of the revolution in February 1917 was the Great War? The February revolution which occurred in 1917 was the result of several causes, one of which being World War 1; in my opinion, it was the most important trigger. The Great War was the cause of Russia becoming financially dependent on Britain and France, decreasing the prestige the Tsar once held. Russia was unable to sustain its wealth due to the extreme costs the War brought: Anger rose within the people and with 85% of the army containing surfs that were losing their loyalty towards the Tsar, a revolution was inevitable. The war encouraged the breakdown of the autocratic way of ruling, but Tsar Nicholas was unqualified to lead the army anyhow, and was ill suited as Commander-In-Chief. This did not aid the Brusilov Offensive in any way; the result was the failure of the attack in August 1916: With the Russian forces deserting from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, the loyalty towards the Tsar was largely affected and reduced. The morale further diminished as during December 1916, the railways were unable to commit to their desired function, which lead to a shortage of military equipment. These transportation failures halted vital supplies reaching the battle areas. The major shortage of military equipment led to the Russian artillery units limiting to firing 3 shells per day – which had an enormous impact on the Russian......

Words: 1320 - Pages: 6

Do You Agree with the View That the Main Reason for Wolsey’s Fall from Power Was His Failure to Secure the Annulment of the King’s Marriage to Catherine?

...Do you agree with the view that the main reason for Wolsey’s fall from power was his failure to secure the annulment of the king’s marriage to Catherine? 1)Failed to secure annulment 2)Factions against him-Aristocrats and anne boleyn out to get him 3)Combination of factors Thomas Wolsey’s rapid rise to power following the first French war is often overshadowed by his even faster downfall by 1529. The third source heavily implies that Wolsey’s downfall was due to factions in particular the Boleyn faction, but it also subtly suggests Wolsey’s previous failures i.e. the amicable grant “fiasco” made him much more susceptible to criticism and helped sow doubt into Henrys mind. Source 4 supports the third source and also brings to attention the role played by another group of people- the aristocrats- who despised Wolsey and as Loades claims Wolsey was a “victim of factional intrigues organised by leading aristocrats”. However the final source totally disagrees with the theory that it was purely factions that resulted in Wolsey’s downfall and instead supports the statement given to an extent, but believes it was a combination of factors that resulted in his downfall, something which the evidence tends to support. There is no doubt that Wolsey’s inability to secure an annulment of Henrys marriage to Catherine infuriated Henry and Wolsey’s sacking was a direct response to this failure. By 1529 the pope was under the control of Charles V after the latter’s victory at the......

Words: 1266 - Pages: 6

Do You Agree with the View That Conservative Economic Policy Was a Success in the Years 1979-1983?

...Do you agree with the view that Conservative economic policy was a success in the years 1979-1983? The Conservative government saw its high and lows from the year 1979 to 1983 however overall it was a success, however this success was only due to the fact that the Conservatives brought about some extreme changes in relation to their economic policy. One of these extreme changes was Thatcher’s adoption of the monetarism. Sources 7 and 9 take into consideration the view that the Conservatives economic policy was a success in the years 1979 to 1983. Source 7 does so by complimenting the success of Thatcherism in the “expanding towns of southern England and East Anglia”. Source 9, comments on the Conservative’s success in decreasing inflation after coming into office. Source 8 directly conflicts with sources 7 and 9 as it shows figures which suggest that unemployment rates and manufacturing output have seen a rapid decrease from the year 1979 and 1984 which the years in which Margaret Thatcher served her first term as Conservative party leader. “Thatcher’s fundamental philosophy of anti-socialist economics prescribed a number of broad objectives” Her basic ideas were that the government basically had to do less in order for it to gain economic success. The construction industry or “smaller industries” which were thought to be self-sufficient were growing quickly particularly in the south and failed to prosper in the north of England. The reason for this is mainly due to......

Words: 933 - Pages: 4

Do You Agree with the View That Thomas Cromwell Was the Driving Force in the Break with Rome in the Years to 1534?

...Do you agree with the view that Thomas Cromwell was the driving force in the break with Rome in the years to 1534?! Plan: ! Para 1:Source 7 and 8 tell us that Cromwell was the driving force in the break! Para 2:Source 9 and 7 also tell us it was driven by henry wanting a divorce ! Conclusion: I believe that the break was not driven by cromwell but a variety of other reasons (quote source 7 and 8 ‘succession problem) Thomas Cromwell was an adviser to Henry VIII, responsible for drafting the documents that formalised England's religious and political break with Rome during the 1530’s. It can be argued that he was the driving force behind the break from Rome. However it could be other reasons such as Henrys desire for a divorce or for his desire for a male heir.! Source 7 and 8 both support the theory that Cromwell was the driving force in the break with Rome. Source 7 says that Cromwell’s importance lay “in his personal influence on the king”, this shows that Cromwell would have worked through the king giving him enough power to drive the break from Rome. Also Source 7 says, “although Cromwell may not have originated the ideas behind Henry’s policy, he took the ideas and made them practicable”, therefore it can be inferred from this source that he was the driving force as it was Cromwell who made the ideas happen. Source 8 also agrees with the statement, it tells us that the “major attack on the Commons on the Church” was “well organised by Cromwell, which Henry......

Words: 745 - Pages: 3

Thatcher and the Miners Strike

...Was the miners strike a success for Thatcher ? She called them "the enemy within" and the 1984-85 miners' strike was the most divisive confrontation of Margaret Thatcher's 11 years in power. In a strike that lasted for a year it pitched striking miners against the police, family members and communities against each other and even saw Britain's security services and foreign governments. The strikes resulted in Mrs Thatcher's status as an unrivalled hate figure for British trade unionists and left-wingers.During the strikes people lost their lives: six pickets, four teenagers looking for coal and a taxi driver taking a non-striking miner to work.More than 11,000 arrests were made and more than 8,000 people were charged, mostly for breach of the peace. But one must argue that despite this public unrest the strike did end in a humiliating way for the strikers and was a success for the conservatives and Thatcher. Maggie said she had seen the strike coming since 1974, when the miners had brought down Edward Heath's Conservative government. Therefore in order to combat this she made plans. She had avoided a miners' strike in 1981 by backing down because coal stocks were low. But after her crushing defeat of Michael Foot's Labour Party in the 1983 general election, she knew a strike was inevitable. The strike was over plans by the National Coal Board to close dozens of uneconomic pits and stem financial losses running into billions. But Thatcher had implemented he plans...

Words: 536 - Pages: 3

Technology Is the Best Way to Reduce the Impact of an Earthquake - to What Extent Do You Agree with This View

...‘Technology is the best way to reduce the impact of an earthquake’ to what extent do you agree with this view? (40 marks) An earthquake is a sudden violent shaking of the ground, typically causing great destruction, as a result of movements within the earth’s crust or volcanic action. Impacts of an earthquake can include short-term impacts such as fatalities, or long-term impacts such as income lost through lack of tourism. Technology can be used to predict the likelihood of an earthquake occurring in a particular area, for example by detecting plate movement, and this can reduce the impacts of an earthquake in return. This essay will discuss whether technology is the best way to reduce the impact of an earthquake or not. Technology can predict earthquakes through a seismometer. A seismometer is used to pick up the vibrations in the Earth’s crust and this can help predict earthquakes as an increase in vibrations may indicate a possible earthquake. Through the use of this technology, people living in earthquake zones are able to evacuate the area, which reduces the likelihood of fatalities from the earthquake and the falling debris caused by it. There are also other ways in which earthquakes can be predicted such as using laser beams to detect plate movement, monitoring the levels of radon gas that is being released from cracks in the crust and monitoring changes in ground levels. In February 1975 in the city of Haicheng in China, scientists identified changes in the......

Words: 1120 - Pages: 5

The Labour Government (1964 to 1970) Was Strong on Rhetoric, but Not on Action.” to What Extent Do You Agree with This Statement? (45)

...Harold Wilson, who was the Prime Minister during 1964-70, had promised Britain one of his most effective campaign speeches. He had promised that Britain would catch up with “the white heat” of technological change. Wilson had successfully linked the Labour Party to modernisation in contrast to what were described as the “wasted years” of the Conservative government. The Labour government seemed to be more in touch with the social and cultural trends of the 1960s. Modernisation of the British economy was one of the key priorities for the Labour government. By 1964, it was widely accepted that Britain was lagging behind other countries such as West Germany and Japan. Britain’s economy seemed to be trapped in the cycle of “stop-go”, with bursts of prosperity always leading to inflation, runs on the pound snd regular crises over the balance of payments. Reorganising the economy to break out of this cycle was the key aim of Wilson’s government in 1964. Moreover, Labour inherited a deficit of about £800million. The two classic economic solutions to this kind of problem were deflation and devaluation. But Wilson and his Chancellor of Exchequer, James Callaghan, refused to do neither. Instead, Wilson was convinced that these problems could be fixed by careful management and planning. A new department, the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) was set up, led by George Brown and a National Plan had been drawn up. He had set growth targets and devised a national system of “economic......

Words: 1323 - Pages: 6