It looks like Arthur Scargill’s relationship with the NUM has ended in tears. This hostile piece is from the Guardian.

Arthur Scargill’s 57-year membership of the National Union of Mineworkers looked set to end in acrimony when he and a number of his allies in the union were in effect expelled after being told by letter that they no longer qualified for full union benefits.

The move follows increasingly bitter relations between Scargill, the NUM’s honorary president now aged 72, and the union he led to disastrous defeat in the year long 80s miners’ strike following a dispute over his continuing eligibility for a number of perks and benefits. Two months ago, he threatened legal action over the union’s refusal to continue subsidising the fuel used at his Barnsley home or to contribute to the cost of a burglar alarm at the property. There has also been a falling out over his use of a union-subsidised flat in the Barbican Estate in London.

Chris Kitchen, the union’s general secretary, said that Scargill could remain honorary president, or could become a life member, honorary member or retired member, but could not be a full financial member and had lost his voting rights. The letter sent to him apparently stated that he no longer qualified according to the union’s own rulebook, which Scargill himself helped to draw up, and the decision was agreed by the Yorkshire area section of the union.

Ken Capstick, a Scargill ally and former editor of the union magazine the Miner, who also received a letter, said: "We have been told that the reason we are being expelled is that we don’t qualify under the union’s rules. A number of us have been raising claims of financial irregularities in the union, and I believe we are now being subjected to a witch-hunt because of this. We will challenge this decision, which has been made on extremely spurious grounds. I believe this is the darkest day in the union’s history. Chris Kitchen has brought nothing but shame to his office.

"I can tell you Mr Scargill is angry and he will fight this in the courts. The union is losing money hand over fist so why should it want to expel members who want to pay their subscriptions?"

He said that the different categories of membership being offered to Scargill, without voting rights, were illegal as he was still working for the union.

An indication of the NUM’s membership decline is that, whereas at the time of the strike it had nearly 300,000 members, that figure is now down to about 1,500.

Scargill himself accused the union earlier in the summer of making an "unlawful and unconstitutional" investigation into his benefits, saying: "I receive, like every other full-time official, concessionary fuel. It has been stopped by somebody, wrongly. People have no right to interfere with a legally binding contract of employment." He insisted that all former leaders had had the right to use the London flat after their retirement.

The internecine union struggle appears to mark an erosion of the ex-leader’s formerly devoted support bases in Yorkshire, Scotland and Wales.

Scargill retired from daily leadership of the NUM in 2002, but has remained its most visible figure while also devoting his energies to leading the Socialist Labour Party, for whom he regularly speaks.

He remains the most controversial and arguably disastrous trade union leader of modern times, presiding over a precipitous decline in membership of the once mighty union following widespread pit closures in the wake of the NUM’s split and defeat during the 1984-5 strike. Recruited to work in the south Yorkshire pits as a teenager in 1953, he had been a union official since 1960 and first came to national prominence during the 1974 miners’ strike, which contributed to the fall of Edward Heath’s Conservative government.

A decade later, the Thatcher government was better prepared to take on the union over pit closures, and had the resolve to overcome the strikers in the face of a divided union, whose Nottinghamshire members declined to accept Scargill’s call for a national strike without a membership ballot. Scargill’s strategy and tactics in leading the strike – he was arrested at one stage during the notorious "battle" of Orgreave where an army of pickets confronted mounted police – were widely, if quietly, questioned by others in the union and in the wider labour movement both at the time and subsequently.

Francis Beckett, co-author of Marching to the Fault Line, the most recent history of the dispute, said: "Arthur Scargill took a proud and powerful trade union, and, by sheer hubris and a failure to think through what he was doing, turned it into a shadow of its former self. He created sectarianism and gave rise to a union that was so divided that it started turning in on itself."

Neither Scargill nor the union were available for comment.

17 responses to “Arrivederci Arthur”

  1. This is a very one-sided view of Scargill’s leadership of the NUM from the Guardian. As far as I remember he was the one trade union leader who fought a strike in order to win it. It’s true that at the September TUC Conference of 1984 he fell for fellow CP member Mick Magahey’s plan to trade bringing out other unions for a weekly levy (which was never seriously collected) but he did fight to win, albeit with some questionable tactics.

    To describe him as the most, ‘disastrous trade union leader of modern times, presiding over a precipitous decline in membership of the once mighty union following widespread pit closures in the wake of the NUM’s split and defeat during the 1984-5 strike’ just shows how much he is hated by the ruling class. It was Thatcher who reduced the number of pits and made so many miners unemployed – not Scargill.

    Like

  2. very sad, that he will rely on courts of the bourgeois state for being “reinstatated” … I thought, that he is a bit more principled

    p.s.: I agree with Jane on here opinion on the Guardian article

    Like

  3. Scargill was not a member of the CP in 1984 or for a very long time before that.

    Like

  4. This piece from the Guardian, a paper that gives critical support to the the ConDem government, is a typical piece of Blairite revisionism which is loose history and lazy journalism. Loose history because it views history as a series of contests between “great” men (and they are usually men) rather than setting the victories/defeats in the wider social and political context in which these battle were fought out. So it was Scargill’s personal failures (or Thatcher’s strengths) which led to the defeat of the miners? What nonsense.

    Scargill indeed has his faults but this rubbish totally ignores the way in which the ruling class (aided by some journalists) attempted to destroy him and the leadership of the NUM as part of a massive attack on the labour movement, the effects of which are felt to this day.

    We need more of Scargill’s kind. And the writer of this article should try reviewing Big Brother.

    Like

  5. I’m sure pedant is right that Scargill was not a member of the CP in 1984, but his politics remained within a bureaucratic framework learned in that organisation. But either way it is telling to compare as Socialist Unity does the obituaries of Jimmy Reid with the way Scargill is vilified.

    Like

  6. I agree with Jane about Scargill’s historic role.
    Despite his fault’s and weaknesses that seem to be emphasised in the current dispute he was alone amongst trade uninon leaders in being prepared to lead an all out fight against the Thatcher Government (one which they both prepared and provoked). If he didn’t have his Stalinist politics it’s not at all clear to me that he would have been any more succesful, as the real problem wasn’t so much the NUM and its leadership as it was the rest of the Labour movement.

    Like

  7. Look this is all a bit petty and everything but I think people should be told:

    http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/michael-ezra-hedge-fund-guru-and-red-baiter/

    Like

  8. Someone from the NUM has commented.
    I think Liam takes (oh what an overused phrase!) an unduly sectarian line. It was Thatcher’s smashing of the coal industry that did for the NUM.

    Like

  9. Skidmarx, the piece above was certainly not written by Liam- its from the Guardian.

    Like

  10. My mistake, though he does repost it without comment.

    Like

  11. Regurgitating media bile without comment? That makes you part of the problem.,

    Is this blogger supposed to be left? There’s reference to some sort of organisation called “Socialist Resistance” all over here. If this guy is representative of them – whoever they are- then they are a bunch of tossers.

    Like

  12. It’s not petty but extremely sad.

    I for one am really gobsmacked that it could come to this.

    The origins of the ISG come from support for the miners.

    All of us were really affected by the dispute.

    My parents and all the leftists and trade unionists of East Anglia put up Miners during the strike and gave their last pennies to the cause .

    I was called to speak at meetings in Paris in my capacity as ‘un anglais’ during the strike.

    Meanwhile the struggle against the Ezraites continues.

    Like

  13. This dreadful lapse in standards is entirely the responsibility of the deputy editor. He nicked the Guardian article and did not attribute it. I’ve since explained to him that my views on the matter are very similar to Jane’s and that this slapdash approach isn’t good enough.

    My gallivanting has ended and normal service has now resumed.

    http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/new-deputy-editor/

    Does anyone fancy giving me a 30 word summary of the debate on the “It’s all Lenin’s fault” piece?

    Like

  14. I did warn you about that little bastard.

    As to “It’s all Lenin’s fault”, I think it can be summarised as “it’s all history’s fault”.

    Like

  15. Scargill was the only union leader in recent history I know of who ran with workers at police lines during a picket. There were limitations to his politics sure of course – possibly if he’d called over and above the union tops heads for rank and file militants in the rail to come out- in line with their national executive vote but action called off by Knapp- that may have made a difference. Scargill didn’t. However, the main responsibility for that has to be that of the bureaucrats of the union movement who sacrificed the miners and let Thatcher impose a strategic defeat on the working class sin Britain.
    See these articles
    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2139
    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2140
    30 words exactly on It’s All Lenin’s Fault:


    Lenin/ Trotsky under pressure severely restricted party democracy aiding bureaucratic counter-revolution and bequeathing a hidebound model of party-building – change this model, learn!

    “Counter-revolutionary anarchist apostasy!” Gerry and David (paraphrasing)’

    Like

  16. For a review of the Stalinist Francis Becketts book and another I was involved in, here are two links. http://aworldtowin.net/reviews/FaultLine.html xxxxxxxxxxxxc http://aworldtowin.net/about/UnfinishedBusiness.html

    Like

  17. Four points:

    1. Arthur Scargill was a member of the YCL and then, briefly, the CP in his early 20s.

    2. That Mick McGahey ‘traded’ solidarity action for a levy, and then persuaded Arthur to do likewise, is news to me. Could Jane Kelly provide some sources? McGahey had tactical disagreements with AS behind the scenes – as he did with the rotten CPGB leadership at the time – but I heard him speak in public and private on numerous occasions during the strike, and he was never less than 100% in favour of getting whatever solidarity action was possible. Still, let’s not let facts stand in the way of the Anti-Stalinist School of Falsification.

    3. Talking of which – thanks for the articles, Jason. Can’t understand why even more militant miners didn’t listen to you during the strike. You could have guided them to victory.

    4. Francis Beckett a ‘Stalinist’?! Lay off the loon juice. He doesn’t dish out the anti-CP vitriol with the same dashing verve as some super-revolutionaries, or trot out the same hoary old myths, but he’s actually a social democrat.

    Like

Leave a reply to SimonD Cancel reply

Trending