Showing posts sorted by date for query POLICE UNIONS. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query POLICE UNIONS. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, November 21, 2024

UK MINERS STRIKE


Arthur Scargill – 1985 NUM Conference Speech

“Let me say, unequivocally, that in defending our policies, jobs, communities and industry, we had no alternative – and history will vindicate our action.”
Arthur Scargill, NUM General Secretary during the Miners’ Strike

Published is the text of the speech made by Arthur Scargill, the then General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, to the 1985 NUM Conference.

Conference meets this year following the longest, most bitter and possibly most savage national strike ever seen anywhere in the world. We meet not in the aftermath but still in the midst of a historic and heroic struggle waged by this Union and mining communities against the most reactionary coal industry management seen since the 1920s and 30s a struggle in which we have had to face the combined weight of the most reactionary and destructive Government Britain has known in over a century.

We have come through a strike which has changed the course of British history: a conflict of tremendous significance which has resounded around the world – a conflict which has transformed the lives of those who stood and fought against the National Coal Board’s disastrous pit closure programme -a conflict which has inspired workers in this and other countries to defend the right to work.

The National Union of Mineworkers has challenged the very heart of the capitalist system. We have refused to accept that any industry in capitalist society – whether public or private – has the right to destroy the livelihood of men and women at the stroke of an accountant’s pen. Our challenge has been met by an Establishment reaction of unprecedented savagery.

The pit closure programme announced by the Board on the 6th March, 1984 was a deliberate action, designed to provoke our Union into either taking strike action or backing down in the face of Coal Board`s policy.

Since November, 1983, the Union had been operating a highly successful overtime ban, building an effective “Campaign For Coal”, winning support both in mining areas and in the wider community the NUM was taking the arguments for saving pits and jobs to our members and their families in a way which had never been seen before.

Faced with this unity of action, the Coal Board began a new tactic, using closure announcements to cut across and violate all our industry’s established procedures. As they contemptuously announced 25 pit closures – five of them to come immediately – with a loss of over 25,000 jobs, we knew that our Union had no real choice. We could either accept the Board’s proposals in the certain knowledge that they were only the start of a massive closure programme-or we could take strike action, and fight with dignity and pride for the position we knew to be right.

To the eternal credit of our Union, we took strike action. Let me say, unequivocally, that in defending our policies, jobs, communities and industry, we had no alternative – and history will vindicate our action.

Now, four months after our return to work, it is essential too look back over the first crucial phase of our fight for the future, examine what was accomplished, and determine where our Union and its members go from here.

It is vital that the Union analyses all the events of 1984/85 in order to learn from what took place and to utilise our experience in the next stage of our fight. The Board’s pit closure programme for 1984/85 was not carried through because the miners took strike action! It was the determination of this Union and mining communities which delivered the worst blow ever dealt to the Thatcher Government, and created a crisis in international capital.

The cost of the miners’ strike in Thatcherism has been truly astronomic. In their crusade against the NUM and trade unionism, the Government robbed Britain’s taxpayers of £8 billion (more than eight times the cost of the Falklands War), as they desperately sought to defeat the miners and destroy the National Union of Mineworkers.

History will record that this was a colossal act of vandalism by a monetarist Tory Government, which in order to survive requires a high pool of unemployed – a weak, collaborationist, or non-existent trade union movement – and laws which remove the democratic rights won by our people in over two centuries of struggle.

The attack on our Union was the culmination of five years in which the Thatcher Government had successively introduced anti-trade union legislation while raising unemployment to four-and-a-half million – and through the use of the media had implanted in trade unionists’ minds the idea that they could not win any struggle against this new authoritarian Government.

The decision to appoint Ian MacGregor as Chairman of the National Coal Board was evidence of the Tories’ growing confidence-and, with their success against the NGA, and the elimination of trade unionism at G.C.H.Q, they showed their increasing contempt for the T.U.C. and its affiliated unions.

Ian MacGregor was appointed NCB Chairman in order that free market criteria could be applied to the mining industry, following exactly the line pursued by the Tory Government in other nationalised industries. His brief was to carry through a policy of pit closures as the first step towards a restructured coal industry, ripe for privatisation -a strategy which the Tories also believed would see Britain’s most powerful union rendered impotent.

Trade unionism and nationalisation are totally abhorrent to MacGregor. His union-busting record in the United States speaks for itself, and it was because of that record that he was brought over to Britain (to the eternal shame of the last Labour Government), first to British Leyland and then to British Steel, before being instructed to butcher British coal.

His attitude not only towards trade unions but Parliament itself has been demonstrated within the last fortnight-first by his disdainful dismissal of the Conservative-dominated Employment Select Committee’s report, which recommended that the Coal Board review its position in relation to those miners dismissed during the strike – a recommendation which if implemented would result in over 80 per cent of those sacked being reinstated.

During the strike, over 900 miners were sacked, and since the end of the strike, still more have been dismissed. To date, over 600 have not been reinstated.

Over 50 of our members have been jailed while carrying out union policy, taking action to save pits and jobs. They are political prisoners, whose crime is fighting for the right to work, and an amnesty for them, as well as reinstatement for all who have been sacked, are among our first priorities.

Ian MacGregor’s contempt for our industry and those who work within it has also just been demonstrated by the Board’s total abandonment of the agreement reached last autumn with NACODS, modifying the Colliery Review Procedure. This Agreement, described during our strike as “sacrosanct” by both the Board and the Government, has now been proved the sham we always said it was.

Ironically, if we judge Ian MacGregor’s stewardship of the coal industry even on the basis of his own market forces criteria, he stands accused of total incompetence and of crimes against Britain’s economy and the British people. During the two years since his appointment, he has cost the taxpayers of this nation over £90 million per week. He is, by any standards, an unmitigated disaster, and if ever there was a case for redundancy, he represents the perfect candidate -the quicker he goes, the better for all concerned.

The NUM argued from the beginning that Ian MacGregor should never have been appointed, his entire performance during and since the end of the dispute bears witness to our belief. Under his direction, local and area management of the Board have embarked on a vendetta of draconian measures which have deliberately destroyed long-established customs and practice within our industry. We have seen industrial relations dismantled as Board management takes an increasingly hard line against our members.

There is no denying that the miners’ strike could have been brought to a swift and successful conclusion within a short space of time but for a number of important factors which had a major effect on the attitude of both the Coal Board and the Government.

1. Following our Special Delegate Conference on 19th April, 1984, which reaffirmed the democratic decision to endorse strike action in accordance with Rule 41, the Union’s call on all Areas to support the dispute was not followed by Nottinghamshire, South Derbyshire or Leicestershire.

In refusing to respond to a call from the vast majority of their colleagues already on strike, and – more importantly – by refusing to respect picket lines, those who continued to work producing coal provided a life-line to the Tory Government as it waged class war against the NUM.

2. There have been many comments from critics, cynics and even some colleagues, suggesting that had we held an individual ballot vote the outcome of our dispute would have been different. That argument has three basic flows:

(a) It fails to recognise that miners in 1984 were taking the same kind of action they had taken in 1981, when they had the support of Notts., South Derbyshire and Leicester -without a ballot.

(b) By the time of our Conference on the 19th April last year, nearly 80 per cent of our members were already on strike.

(c) The argument also fails to recognise, or conveniently forgets, that on a previous occasion Areas, including Notts., South Derbyshire and Leicester, refused to accept the democratic decision of our membership as determined in an individual ballot vote, and proceeded to negotiate with the Coal Board an incentive scheme which has helped to divide this Union and weaken our ability to fight for our policies.

3. There have been suggestions (again, from critics, cynics, even some colleagues) that traditional, picket-line militancy is dead. Nothing could be further from the truth, and accurate, historical analysis will prove that point beyond doubt. It was not a failure of mass picketing, but a failure to mass picket that represented a weakness in many sections of our Union, and other trade unions beside ourselves must learn the lessons of what took place in 1984/85.

The mass picketing of Orgreave, like Saltley in 1972, proved so effective that it led to the British Steel Corporation halting its operations on the 18th June, 1984. But – unlike Saltley, where picketing was stepped up and intensified following the first closure – at Orgreave picketing was scaled down following our success on 18th June.

I have consistently argued that the tactics which brought us victory at Saltley should have been employed at Orgreave, where with increased picketing we would inevitably have involved the trade union and Labour movement throughout the Sheffield and South Yorkshire area, and brought the flow of coke from Orgreave to a complete halt.

We are involved in a class war, and any attempt to deny that flies in the face of reality. Confronted by our enemy’s mobilisation, we are entitled, indeed obliged, to call upon our class for massive support. In any future industrial action by any Union – including ours -this must be done.

4. It is a fact that the NUM did not receive the level of support we needed and were entitled to expect from our colleagues in the wider Movements.

In spite of pleas from this Union, the leaders of the power workers refused to give us the same basic support they gave in 1974 – a measure of support which, I should add for the sake of the record, was not present in 1972 (contrary to any statements made by media experts). In 1974, by operating basic principled guidelines, power workers stopped the flow of coal into British power stations.

By acquiescing in the conversion of coal-fired power stations to oil, the power station workers made it possible for the Government and the C.E.G.B. to raise the amount of oil burn from 5 to 40 per cent. Power station workers could have prevented this simply by operating along the same principled lines followed in 1974.

5. The abject refusal by I.S.T.C. leaders to mobilise and coordinate the same degree of support for the NUM which we gave steel workers in 1980 not only betrayed every tenet of the “Triple Alliance”, but actually forced and provoked the battles of Orgreave, Ravenscraig and Llanwern.

The British Steel Corporation has admitted that without the cooperation of the steel unions they could not have kept going, and the Coal Board would thus have been put under intense pressure to negotiate with the NUM.

6. The Government’s massive transport operation, mounted a long the lines of the Ridley Plan, to convey coal, coke and iron ore to power stations and steel works only proved effective because the power and steel unions failed to respect picket lines and stop deliveries.

On the other hand, the fantastic support given to us by the National Union of Railwaymen, A.S.L.E.F., the National Union of Seamen, and sections of the T.G.W.U. was not only an inspiration, but a demonstration to the rest of the Movement and the world of what trade union solidarity is all about. Their support is something that our Union will never forget.

7. Last October, NACODS, having committed themselves to a united fight with the NUM on pit closures, suddenly capitulated to the Board during talks at the conciliation service ACAS, and accepted what everyone now knows was a deal that amounted to deception.

This NACODS/NCB Agreement, described as “sacrosanct” by both the Board and Government, was praised to the skies by pundits and politicians who criticised the NUM for refusing to accept it.

The Agreement – which we said was worthless -was supposed to introduce into the colliery review procedure an independent appeals body, acceptable to unions and management, which would review any dispute about the future of a colliery or unit after all other procedures had been exhausted.

Only four months after the end of the miners’ strike, the Coal Board has now openly violated this “sacrosanct” Agreement, and has announced instead that it will go ahead on its own, unilaterally appointing one inspector to hear any appeals. The NUM warned that the Agreement was a sham, and we have been proved absolutely correct.

8. The T.U.C.’s failure to translate into positive action the decisions taken at the 1984 T.U.C. Congress was seen by the Government as a green light to intensify its attacks on the NUM Had the guidelines supporting the NUM adopted by Congress been even partially implemented, the pressure upon the Coal Board and the Government would have been intense, and a negotiated settlement inevitable.

There can be no excuse for the T.U.C. General Council’s refusal to provide desperately needed financial assistance to this Union following sequestration and receivership. The appointment of a Receiver for a trade union is unprecedented, and is associated with the new Tory legislation – yet, eight months after receivership was imposed on the NUM, the £400,000 fund established by the T.U.C. at the 1982 Wembley Conference remains intact while we fight to survive.

9. During the strike, the Labour Party leadership allowed itself to be preoccupied with allegations of “violence”, scripted daily by the media-when they should have been attacking the Tory Government for its violence against our industry, and defending our members in the same way as Thatcher defended her riot squad in blue.

10. The High Court decision last autumn to fine the NUM, and then place an order of sequestration upon us failed to stop the Union functioning. Further legal moves then resulted in the High Court sacking the three NUM Trustees and appointing a Receiver, whose purpose was to bring our Union’s operations and administration to a standstill by hijacking our funds. As a result of his appointment, our funds have been depleted by £1 million which would be part of our assets today had the Union’s Trustees not been removed by the High Court.

11. Throughout the past year, and longer, the capitalist media has played a role which would have impressed even Goebbells. Press and broadcasting have smeared and lied about our Union, its leadership and its members. It’s no good just blaming proprietors and managing editors. Journalists-many of whom will say privately that they “support” the miners – have allowed themselves to be used to attack us every day at every turn, as we fight to protect and sustain our industry. But in hurling weapon after weapon at the NUM, our enemies have revealed more than their hatred of us – they have revealed their own fear. Their viciousness springs from the knowledge that the heart of their own-class ridden system is under attack.

12. The proposal for a return to work without an agreement was a fundamental mistake – and events have shown that this was not the best course of action to adopt.

However, let no-one talk to me about defeat or setbacks. Those who since the end of the strike have pontificated in a negative and destructive fashion fail utterly to understand the nature of what actually took place.

This Union must not turn inwards in an orgy of self-criticism. We should stand confident and proud of what we have achieved, proclaiming the positive aspects of the dispute, and the most important victory of all – the struggle itself.

Within our Union and our communities, the strike brought forth revolutionary changes. I never tire of paying tribute to our young miners, whose courage and determination throughout the months’ battle remain an inspiration to us all. Our union must continue to involve them and use their energy and skills to the full.

I also acknowledge, yet again, the magnificent force which has emerged to take its rightful place alongside the N.U.M. -the women’s support groups. No words of mine can pay adequate tribute to their historic contribution to our common struggle. I believe I speak on behalf of Michael McGahey and Peter Heathfield as well when I say that nothing gives me greater pride than my association with Women Against Pit Closures.

They have been our strongest and truest allies, and there is absolutely no doubt that their collective strength is crucial to the fight that still lies ahead of us.

The Future

For the NUM, the tasks ahead present the greatest challenge any trade union has ever faced. We must build from this Conference a united fight united on policies and on principles. We must intensify the fight to save pits, jobs and communities, knowing that in the present climate only industrial action hopefully involving other mining unions can stop a pit closure programme which if allowed to proceed would slaughter our industry.

We must demand from the rest of the Movement – in particular the leadership of the Labour Party and the TUC -a commitment in action to our fight for coal.

The case to protect our communities and mining families is irrefutable – but never forget that it is inextricable from the economic case for coal, and it is on our economic case against pit closures that we urge the Labour Party and TUC to campaign in Parliament and throughout the nation.

The brilliant economic case against pit closures produced by Andrew Glyn of Oxford University shows that the cost to Britain’s taxpayers of closing a pit is almost double that of keeping it open, employing workers and producing valuable coal.

This is a fight for Britain’s future, and the extent to which we succeed or fail fundamentally affects other workers and the nation’s destiny.

The rail and steel industries, now under increasing attack must learn the lessons of the last 12 months, and understand that the surest way to save British steel and the railways is to take combined action-and not leave trade union colleagues isolated when facing a concerted attack by the ruling class.

But ours is not just a defensive fight. Our generation of trade unionist has a responsibility to make the dreams of the Socialist pioneers a reality. In fighting to save our nationalised industries and public services, we must win for them and for the British people the democracy, accountability, efficiency and profitability they have been denied over the past 40 years.

Looking ahead, one immediate task facing us – and the Movement – is building the campaign to release our members, jailed as political prisoners fighting against pit closures. We must win reinstatement at work for our members sacked during and since the end of the strike. This task is as crucial to our Union as the fight to save the industry itself.

We make it clear to the next Labour Government that it must first of all ensure that it frees from jail and reinstates at work any miners who remain victimised.

The next Labour Government must then address itself to the National Coal Board. It is no longer enough to merely call for the dismissal of ]an McGregor, although the NUM and the Movement must continue to do that. The next Labour Government must remove all senior Coal Board personnel, and all area and local managers who have not only participated during the last two years in the deliberate destruction of our industry, but who have viciously attacked our members and sought to humiliate them since the end of the strike.

The NUM must then be invited to share in the responsibility of running the National Coal Board as it should be run – of the people, by the people and for the people. The Board must be accountable to those who work within our industry, and the Chairman should be the nominee of the unions. Only in this way can the great wrongs of the past five years be righted, and our industry expanded and developed in line with 1974 Plan for Coal.

It follows that we must therefore make the broad alliances necessary to create the conditions for the swiftest possible return of a Labour Government – one which will mobilise a march towards full employment, while campaigning for peace, the removal of all nuclear bases from Britain, and economic justice throughout the world.

Despite the struggles and turmoil of the past two years, our Union will continue to participate in plans for a new Miners’ International Organisation, incorporating East and West by bridging the ideological differences and ripping away the barriers that have separated workers for far too long.

As we look at rising unemployment within Europe, the threat to other EEC coal industries, as we view the horror of incessant warfare in the Lebanon, or watch while thousands die of hunger in the Third World, we cannot forget that our own struggles are connected with those of workers everywhere.

As we see the nuclear madness of the ever-increasing arms race, we must re-dedicate ourselves to campaign for peace – without world peace there is no hope for any of us. We must campaign until the billions spent on weapons of death and destruction are spent instead on providing an improved quality of life.

This Conference is a vital one. It follows a historic strike which has united our communities as never before. It is true to say that in 1984/85, for the first time in 50 years, many of our people discovered the real meaning of the word “community”.

But there are also indications (carefully nurtured by our enemies in the Board and Government) of splits and divisions in our great Union-divisions which would inevitably affect our ability to fight effectively to stop pit closures, save jobs or indeed to represent as powerfully as we should the interests of the entire membership.

At a time when the industry is under attack from the ruthless Government seen in our lifetime, it would be a disaster for every member of the Union if any breakaway were to take place. But, as history shows all too clearly, it would be most disastrous of all for those who themselves formed any such breakaway.

I call on all sections of our Union to take strength from the lessons of 1984/85, and from the fact that we are all part of a national Union.

I pledge for my part to accept the decisions of Conference – whether it be on policy or Rules – and to work wholeheartedly for them. No matter what my personal view, I will fight for the policies you decide, and I believe that all Areas of the Union should give the same commitment. That is my responsibility as President and I carry it proudly.

I would like, in conclusion, to express my appreciation of the unfailing solidarity and comradeship shared throughout our struggle by the three National Officials. Michael McGahey, Peter Heathfield and I have worked together in a way which has helped me meet and combat the unremitting attacks of our class enemy.

Our Union’s contribution to history and to humanity is in itself a triumph – let our great strike be the beginning of the fight not only to save jobs and pits, but to strengthen our Union, and help create the conditions for electing a Labour Government pledged to fulfil the aims and principles upon which the NUM was founded.


  • To commemorate 40 years from the Miners’ Strike, Arise Festival are hosting a day school on Saturday 23 November from 1PM: Class War in Britain – the Miners’ Strike 40 Years on.
  • Join the discussion about what really happened during the strike with former striking miner Ian Lavery MP; John Hendy KC, who represented the NUM in the 1980s; Mike Jackson, Lesbians & Gays Support the Miners co-founder; Chris Peace, Orgreave Truth & Justice Campaign; Jon Trickett, Councillor elected during the strike & campaigner for coalfield communities and more.
  • This speech was made by Arthur Scargill, the then General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, to the 1985 NUM Conference.

The UK Government Must Deliver on Promise of Orgreave Inquiry


“Much of the police conduct at Orgreave, and on picket lines throughout the strike, was out of control. This has taken a personal toll on many of us miners and our families. Many of us are still traumatised, many have died”
Kevin Horne, miner arrested at Orgreave

By the Orgreave Truth & Justice Campaign

The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign have had an extremely positive meeting at the Home Office with the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper to discuss the Labour Government’s commitment to an Orgreave Inquiry/Investigation and the options and format of the inquiry. The meeting gave arrested miners and their wives and supporters an opportunity to impress upon the Home Secretary why an Orgreave inquiry needs to start as a matter of urgency to ensure it happens in their lifetime.

Previous Conservative Home Secretaries have refused to hold any kind of Orgreave inquiry but the Labour Party have promised to hold some kind of Orgreave inquiry as a manifesto commitment for the last 8 years. 

Kevin Horne, miner arrested at Orgreave said:

“It is now over 40 years since striking miners, fighting to save our jobs and communities, were attacked and arrested by police for picketing the Orgreave coking plant during the 84/5 miners’ strike. As the years role by and many miners have died, those of us left, and our families need answers about what the government planned and what the police did.”

95 striking miners were arrested at Orgreave on 18 June 1984 after police in full riot gear with truncheons, dogs and charging horses, brutally attacked the miners gathering at a National Union of Mineworkers picket at the Orgreave coking plant. The miners were later charged with either riot or unlawful assembly with threats of a life prison sentence. Almost a year later when the cases went to trial in May 1985, it became clear that the police had lied in their evidence and that they had perjured themselves in court. The trial collapsed after 48 days of hearings, the Prosecution abandoned the case when it was obvious that many officers had large parts of their statements dictated to them.

Kate Flannery, Secretary of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign (OTJC) said:

“Our latest OTJC report, submitted to the Home Secretary and all major political parties and MPs, describes the Conservative Government’s political interference and involvement in the 1984/5 miners’ strike and how they used the courts, violent policing and the media to give the police the confidence to behave with impunity throughout the miners’ strike and years later at Hillsborough. The Orgreave trial was set up to be a ‘show trial’ but when the police’s violent behaviour and lies became obvious and the miners were acquitted, the miners never got their chance in court to say what really happened and no one in the police or government has ever been held to account”

Kevin Horne, miner arrested at Orgreave also said: 

“Much of the police conduct at Orgreave, and on picket lines throughout the strike, was out of control. This has taken a personal toll on many of us miners and our families. Many of us are still traumatised, many have died and are now elderly and ill and after 40 years it is important that an Inquiry is conducted quickly. It is in the public interest to hold an Orgreave inquiry. We thank all our supporters during and since the strike, throughout Britain and throughout the world  for the wonderful solidarity we received, then and now”

A follow up briefing meeting held in parliament with a number of MPs gave the OTJC an opportunity to discuss the need for an inquiry to take place urgently. Plenty of information exists and has already been obtained to give an inquiry a substantial head start to deliver truth and justice. The OTJC does not demand an expensive, overly-long Inquiry.

  • The Inquiry must have the power to require all the relevant information and evidence to be produced to it.
  • Those who have an interest in the Inquiry must be able to fully participate in order to lend their experience, knowledge and understanding to the process.
  • The panel conducting the inquiry/investigation must include a range of skills so that people can have confidence it will fully understand the issues and be independent and objective in its approach.
  • The Inquiry must be transparent, open and accessible and its conclusions publicly explained in an authoritative way.

Many politicians, local councils, trade unions, the Bishop of Sheffield, Pete Wilcox, the South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard and thousands of supporters are amongst the many who want to see an Orgreave inquiry.


Wednesday, November 20, 2024

General strike in Greece against cost of living


By AFP
November 20, 2024

Public transport, schools, courts and hospitals were affected by the strike - Copyright AFP Richard A. Brooks

Thousands of people demonstrated in Athens and other cities Wednesday as a 24-hour general strike against the rising cost of living shut down public services and part of the transport network.

Some 15,000 people marched in the capital, while another 4,000 demonstrated in Greece’s second city Thessaloniki, police said.

The Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) said the strike was a “riposte to the government’s refusal to take measures to guarantee a decent life for workers.

“The government has to understand that the prosperity of society depends on that of the workers,” it added in a statement.

“Urgent action is needed to fight the surge in prices, unaffordable housing and the persistence of low wages,” said Esther Lynch, secretary general of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). She was in Greece to back the action, said the ETUC.

Boats from the mainland to the Aegean and Ionian islands were also hit by the strike as members of the PNO sailors’ union joined the action.

Staff at bus, metro and train services, schools, courts and hospitals joined the strike.

There is increasing anger in Greece not just at rising prices of food but also of housing, particularly acute in Athens, in a country where low wages are widespread.

Inflation hit 2.4 percent year on year in October, the statistics office Elstat reported.

On Tuesday, the Greek journalists union carried out their own 24-hour strike, calling for new collective agreements. The last one dates back to 2008, before Greece’s devastating financial crisis.

The unions, which have called several strikes since the beginning of the year, denounce the policies of the current conservative government, led by Kyriakos Mitsotakis, re-elected last year for a fresh, four-year mandate.

Mitsotakis recently announced plans to boost people’s purchasing power with an increase in the minimum wage, currently 830 euros, and pensions from January 2025.

UK  Farmers’ protest: ‘We probably are all millionaires’


Landowners, big business and right wingers set the tone at the farmers' protest


Tractors descended on Downing Street for the farmers’ protest (Photo: Socialist Worker)

By Camilla Royle
Tuesday 19 November 2024  
SOCIALIST WORKER Issue


Over 20,000 farmers gathered in central London on Tuesday to protest against Labour’s plan to bring in inheritance tax on farm land.

Relief from inheritance tax will only apply to the first £1 million of agricultural and business property.

Anything worth more than this, would be subject to a 20 percent tax—half the usual rate of inheritance tax.

And due to tax rules, a couple could pass on up to £3 million tax free.


A group of young farmers from Essex told Socialist Worker, “We probably are all millionaires. But only on paper. The return on what we invest is less than 1 percent”.

Placards from the far right Reform UK and a Ukip flag were evident on the protest as well as signs with conspiracy theories and messages of climate change denial.

Many of the placards attacked Labour prime minister Keir Starmer such as those calling him “farmer harmer Starmer.

A farmer from Sussex told Socialist Worker he would be affected by the inheritance tax proposal due to his 120 acres of land. He said he felt ignored by the media, saying, “They haven’t got a clue.”

He then claimed that the “socialist” government is waging a “class war” by charging VAT for private schools while train drivers get an extra £10,000 a year.

Poorer farmers do face real hardship and many talked about other issues besides inheritance tax. They are squeezed by the supermarkets’ drive to profiteer and have faced years of poor harvests due to extreme weather.

A supporter of the protest told Socialist Worker, “It feels like just another thing that’s added to make life difficult for people”.

Tenant farmers don’t own the land they farm on and face rising rents. One tenant farmer brought a placard to the protest written on the back of an animal feed sack. It mentioned the difficulties of supporting three children and the loss of the basic payment scheme that had supplemented farmers’ incomes.

Speakers from the stage said farmers are custodians of the land who provide a vital service by getting up at all hours to feed the nation. Farmer Clare Wise said her farm is involved in two net zero projects so is part of the solution to climate change.

Yet the farmers’ protest also provided a venue for right wing figures.

The most popular speaker was TV personality Jeremy Clarkson. The cosplaying farmer put a hard climate-sceptic message.

He told the crowd that environmentalists are just “whingeing” when they say that “cows are changing the composition of the atmosphere and fertilisers are ruining the trouty freshness of the streams and rivers”.

Tory party leader Kemi Badenoch was there to tell farmers that the Conservative Party understands them and that farming is crucial to “our way of life”.

The organisers got a big cheer for thanking the Metropolitan police for keeping everyone safe.

But one flag at the protest referred to “two tier policing”—the idea popular with the far right that cops treat pro-Palestine and climate protesters too leniently.

One farmer told Socialist Worker, “We are not militant, we won’t do what the Just Stop Oil climate protesters do which really annoys people”.

Another joked that it would be much easier to drive tractors to parliament if they stuck a Palestinian flag on one.


What We Think

Big business uses plight of farmers
Why is the first major protest under Labour organised by landowners and agribusiness?



On the farmers’ protest in Westminster
Tuesday 19 November 2024
SOCIALIST WO9RKER  Issue

Tractors, wellies and Barbour jackets made their way to Downing Street on Tuesday to protest against Labour’s inheritance tax rise. It doesn’t hit most farmers. But millionaire land owners and big business are drawing on the plight of poorer farmers to organise against the plans.

Labour’s budget means farmers will no longer be exempt from inheritance tax from April 2025. They would have to pay 20 percent inheritance tax on any estate worth more than £1 million—and even then, only what exceeds one million. This is still just half the main rate of inheritance tax.

Inheritance tax is not levied on the value of property up to £325,000, bringing the untaxed total to £1.325 million. And, if a farmer is married and owns the farm jointly, their spouse can pass on an additional £1.325 million tax free.

Furthermore, there is a £175,000 tax-free allowance on a main residence when it’s being passed to children of grandchildren.

All this means that a couple with farmland could pass on up to £3 million without paying a penny of inheritance tax. Those who inherited the farm land wouldn’t have to pay it straightaway—they can pay it in instalments over ten years interest free.

So why the widespread anger among farmers? William Taylor from Farmers For Action has said the protest is over a “whole cocktail of issues”. Since Brexit, farmers face reduced subsidies, increased tariffs and falling prices for products and livestock. But, while these issues affect all farmers, inheritance tax does not. Farmers aren’t a homogenous social group—they range from rich landowners and big agribusiness to those don’t own any land.

Many farmers are on a knife-edge. Some own land that can’t be used outside of farming—for example, rich farmers can make money by selling land that has planning permission while a hillside farmer can’t do that. Others are pressured by falling livestock prices, or are tenant farmers who own no land and are scarred by increasing land prices.

The root cause of their problem is an agricultural system dominated by big business interests, the market and profit. We need a sustainable system that meets people’s needs.

But poorer farmers are being pushed to the front of the protests by farming organisations precisely because people can relate to that real hardship.

For a supposedly “non-political” protest, Jeremy Clarkson claimed Labour has a “sinister plan” to “ethnically cleanse” farmers to make room for “immigrant towns”. It’s a vile, racist trope—and unsurprisingly, the far right latched onto it.

Nick Griffith, former leader of the fascist BNP said, “Jeremy Clarkson nails it.” Far right groups are hoping to latch on to the protest to push their agenda.

The farmers’ protests show how weak the Labour government is. But why is the first major protest under Labour organised by landowners and agribusiness? Union leaders should be organising opposition to Labour over the two-child benefit cap, winter fuel cuts and austerity.



Farmers’ protests: ‘Why inheritance tax won’t cost Labour rural seats in 2029’


Credit: Lois GoBe/Shutterstock.com



No political party has ever formed a government without at least some rural voters. At the most recent election, Labour made enormous strides forward with rural Britain.

Fabian Society analysis found the party went from representing just two of the most rural constituencies to representing 40. Even in seats that were only partially rural, those rural voters often made the difference between defeat and victory.

Since the Budget, these rural votes have enjoyed an all-too-rare time in the spotlight. Numerous commentators have argued that the governments’ reforms to inheritance tax have put Labour’s rural seats at risk. The Telegraph has argued ‘the showdown with farmers risks defining Starmer’s government’, while the I suggests that ‘Labour could lose 59 seats over farmer inheritance taxes.

However, the likely political impact is just as inflated as their supposed economic impact. In fact, for most voters in rural areas, inheritance tax changes are unlikely to make a difference to how they vote in a few years’ time.

They are not farmers (many of whom will not be hit by these changes despite the scare stories), not employed in agriculture – and will not be affected by this change. While they are more likely than average to care about the future of British farming, rural voters are not massively different to those in towns or big cities.

So, to keep vital rural seats at the next election, Labour must focus relentlessly on showing it understands the real concerns of those who live in rural communities, not the vested interests of those represented on the front page of The Telegraph. Because while inheritance tax changes alone are unlikely to shift rural voters away from Labour, ignoring the countryside will. That raises the question: what do rural voters really care about?

What do rural voters care about?

Fabian Society research has found that voters in rural communities care more about the challenges facing their immediate family such as getting a GP appointment, the cost of essentials, and ensuring their kids get ahead.

Just as rural voters worried about the cost-of-living crisis, NHS waiting lists and immigration at the last election, they will probably make their decision on similar issues at the next election. And ultimately, Ronald Reagan’s famous formulation– ‘are you better off now than you were then’ – applies as much to voters in rural communities, as it does to those in towns and cities.

Our research also found significant rural disaffection pre-election – with many people believing their communities were neglected. When asked ‘is your local area prioritised by politicians in Westminster when decisions are made about the future of the country’, 70% of rural respondents said that it wasn’t.

This was higher than across Britain as a whole, where 62% felt their area was not prioritised. Labour has to address this with a story, rooted in the values shared in towns cities and villages across the country: home, security and stability.

And they need to show they are different to the Conservatives – who might have taken care of very wealthy landowners, but often sidelined the real issues and the interests of the rural majority.

This story needs to be accompanied by delivering on the things that matter to rural voters.

Winning in the countryside

The Fabian Society identified several policy areas where rural communities felt left behind. Opportunities for young people, housing affordability, high streets, and the availability and affordability of public transport – these are all key issues on which rural voters think they are getting a poor deal on compared to other areas.

Delivery will help address rural disaffection and keep rural votes, albeit not on its own.

Public transport is especially overlooked, and vital for rural communities, many of whom are unable to access jobs because of transport, or who have to pay the expense of running a car. That’s why the government’s £1bn for bus services, announced over the weekend, is far more likely to impact rural voters’ attitudes towards the government than inheritance tax changes.

In 2029, just as ahead of the 2024 election, Labour’s route to victory runs through the countryside. But ultimately, the inheritance tax protests should not distract the government from the real task of delivery and narrative.

From strengthening rural bus services to fixing our NHS and cutting the cost of living, the government can have a unifying story of the difference it has made in just five years. If it can get the policy and the story right, all these column inches in The Telegraph will come to nothing on election night.




London farmers’ protest: ‘This might just be round one of Labour versus farmers’


Credit: David Calvert/Shutterstock.com

‘Get in a row with farmers’ was probably not high on the government’s ideal November to-do list. Especially given its already alarming poll ratings, and the British public’s misty eyed romanticisation of agriculture.

But here we are, with hundreds of farmers descending on Westminster today for a ‘day of action’ to share their dissatisfaction with MPs over measures brought in by last month’s Budget to limit the exemptions farm property gets from inheritance tax.

The government’s approach will be to try to defuse the situation, emphasising that most farmers will be unaffected and that all they are doing is ensuring the richest pay their fair share.

Yet as it draws up its response, it must look beyond the short term, and recognise that this is unlikely to be the last time it comes into conflict with the farm lobby. John McTernan exaggerated unhelpfully when he likened the stand off to the miners’ strike last week – things are not that stark.

A ‘war on farmers’?

Accusations from the other side that Labour has declared war on farmers are also clearly overblown. Nevertheless, the government needs to recognise that this may end up being round one of an ongoing bout, and strategise appropriately.

This is a government whose two biggest priorities – the first two of its missions – are raising economic growth and achieving the climate transition. Both involve doing things farmers will resist.

On economic growth, there is the direct issue of Britain’s stagnant agricultural productivity, something any government seeking to take a supply side approach to growth needs to confront (it is easily forgotten that even Liz Truss listed the issue among her six supply side priorities).

At the very least, that is going to involve hard conversations about the shape of their industry –scale, methods, and particularly the age profile of farmers. One positive consequence of the inheritance tax changes might be to encourage some of the 38% of farmers that are over 65 to sell up a bit earlier – if only to their own children – which could support innovation.

Then there is the issue of subsidies: famously, New Zealand has seen some of the biggest improvements in farm productivity following the phasing out of most government support in the 1980s.

A more immediate issue is land use. Following the inheritance tax announcement, many farmers were quick to point out that they are asset rich, but cash poor. The National Farmers’ Union chose to highlight their “extremely modest” return on capital, averaging less than 1% – but from an economists’ perspective, that suggests inefficient use of resources.

The government’s plans for planning reform and housebuilding may also lead them into conflict with farmers. The Home Builders’ Federation blames the leeway given to farmers in terms of exemptions from nitrogen pollution regulations for thwarting the construction of 160,000 homes. It is interesting that it has gone after agriculture in this way – in the Netherlands, farmers and those in favour of construction came together to resist the regulations.

On the environment, confrontation does not seem so imminent, but surely cannot be put off forever. Agriculture accounts for 12% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, and the Climate Change Committee, an independent advisory body to the government, has expressed growing frustration that “total emissions from agriculture have not significantly decreased since 2008”.

It has demanded an acceleration of progress and clearer policy, with its outgoing Chief Executive saying the government can no longer afford to “run scared” of confronting farmers on emissions. The Climate Change Committee says meat and dairy consumption should fall by 20% over the course of a decade; agricultural lobbyists deny livestock numbers need to come down at all.

Labour also has a mandate to clean up rivers, and while its focus has been on water companies, at some point it will need to address the fact that half of nitrates in rivers and a quarter of phosphates come from farms. In fact, more rivers are affected by agricultural pollution than wastewater run-offs.

Handling controversies

There are similarities between the current controversy and the government’s uncomfortable position on Winter Fuel Payments from earlier in the summer. In both cases, the policy decision it took was reasonable, but put them at odds with a vocal constituency that enjoys broad public sympathy and support – then pensioners, now farmers.

Doubtless there are those who believe the government should u-turn on these contentious policies, but I think a better lesson to take from the summer is that the government did not explain clearly enough why it was taking the decision it was, and how it fit into its wider governing strategy.

Farmers are a formidable interest group to take on, with the majority of people saying they would back farmers if they were to go ahead with a proposed strike. At the same time, it is unclear how deep that goodwill really runs.

There is a risk of farmers overplaying their hand, turning people with what might come to appear a hyperbolic response to defend the interests of millionaires. Means testing Winter Fuel Payments affects millions of households; the inheritance tax changes less than 500 farms.

The government needs to move carefully, avoiding unnecessary antagonism and bringing the sector with it as far as possible. But it must also recognise that growing and decarbonising the economy, and building housing and infrastructure may bring more conflict.

It would be better to get out in front of these tensions rather than papering over them, explaining why change is necessary, even if it is not popular. That is not an easy road to take, but a government seeking to take the tough, responsible decisions necessary for national renewal doesn’t get to do things the easy way.



‘Farmer protests and Reform’s threat loomed large at Welsh Labour conference – but threats remain on the left too’


The Welsh Labour Party is worried about Reform; that was my main takeaway from a weekend in Llandudno with the Welsh party for its conference.

At a briefing event for activists on how to sell Labour policy on the doorstep, Constituency Labour Party delegates and councillors were given a fact sheet on how to counter unhappiness over the winter fuel payment decision (“The last UK government wrecked the economy, leaving a £22bn black hole in the public finances”; “There were no easy options, but not acting was not an option”).

All the attendees who spoke were finding significant anger about the decision, often from voters who fell just above the pension credit threshold.

All attendees were worried about Reform, who put in a strong performance at the general across the South Wales valleys. One member from Torfaen, where there are already 3 Reform councillors, expressed the concern that they could take further council seats.

 Out amongst the stalls, one charity employee focused on lobbying the Senedd was also pessimistic, predicting that Reform would at minimum take a substantial number of seats, and even be in with a smaller chance of wholesale control.

Reform’s viability at the next set of Senedd elections in 2026 is down to more than (supposedly) meeting the political moment; the number of representatives is expanding, from 60 to 96, and the voting system is changing, meaning a potentially easier road to Cardiff Bay.

SIGN UP: Get the best daily roundup and analysis of Labour news and comment in our newsletter

The threat of Reform was also addressed by the conference’s two headliners. Keir Starmer, speaking on Saturday morning, commented that “politics in our times is volatile and it can change very, very quickly”, in a nod to potential flips in the Senedd.

Eluned Morgan was more direct in her assertion that Nigel “Farage has no more interest in our country than he has for the people of Clacton”, before arguing that “Wales is not a one night stand. It’s a country”.

The biggest story of the conference (where motions debate was comradely to the point of inertia; I saw a smattering of hands go up to oppose a motion on nuclear power, but unanimous passing was largely the order of the day) took place outside the hall, on Saturday morning, when a convoy of tractors parked up to protest Labour’s plans on inheritance tax.

Starmer addressed opponents of the budget – whose honking horns could just about be heard in the hall as he spoke –  fairly head-on, saying he would defend its policies “all day long”. Nonetheless, there was a feeling that the farmers outside were avatars of the broader threat bearing down on the Welsh party from right wing populism.

I spoke to one person, however, who thought the threat of Reform should perhaps not be the party’s foremost concern: one Senedd member was more worried about the votes the party could lose to the left, to the Greens and Plaid.

It’s undoubtedly a valid concern, and one common across the wider party since the general election this summer returned 4 Green MPs and 5 independents. It also gestures to the danger of over-deciding a narrative before it’s happened (that Reform will make big gains; that the ill feeling of the protesting farmers and those unhappy about winter fuel payments will flow naturally to Farage’s party).

The reasonably substantial pro-Palestine protest that took place outside the conference venue got far less attention than the farmers’, but it would be remiss not to note it or to treat those sentiments as business as usual or priced in. For the Welsh Party, as nationally, losing votes is not a zero sum game: you can shed support to both your left and your right.

Eluned Morgan is clearly well liked; people talk about her with genuine warmth, and her first speech to conference as First Minister (she walked out to “We Are Family” by Sister Sledge) was high energy and well received.

Having been an MEP and a Labour peer before coming to the Senedd in 2016, people seem happy to have an experienced hand on the till after an electorally successful (following July’s election there are no Tory MPs in Wales, full stop) but internally fraught (Vaughan Gething’s scandal-dogged 4 month leadership came to a close just after the general election) year for the Welsh party. Happy though people may generally be with Morgan, the common view is that the next few years will not be plain sailing.

A journalist’s job is, famously, not to report that people are saying it’s raining, but to look out the window and check. People at Welsh Labour were certainly saying they are worried about Reform. Given that, when looking out the window, the first thing one saw was tractors manned by irate farmers with signs saying “end Labour’s genocide on the countryside”, it seems like they might be onto something.



Senior Welsh Labour figures have sought to reassure farmers angered by changes to inheritance tax, who picketed outside the party’s Welsh conference.

Dozens of protesters gathered outside the Venue Cymru in Llandudno for the first day of Welsh Labour Conference, where Prime Minister Keir Starmer addressed delegates for the first time since entering Downing Street.

From April 2026, landowners will pay inheritance tax on combined agricultural and business property worth more than £1 million at a rate of 20%, compared to the standard 40%.

However, farming unions have warned that scrapping the full relief from inheritance tax could have significant and disastrous consequences on family-run farms, particularly in Wales.

‘Very few will be affected’

Speaking to LabourList, First Minister Eluned Morgan said she represents a rural area and understands the concerns of farmers.

However, she said: “I think it’s important we get clarity on how many are potentially going to be affected by this. There is a lack of agreement at the moment between what the farmers think and what the Treasury says, so we need to bottom that out so that there is an understanding of how many are likely to be affected.

“Our initial calculations are that there will be very few of them that will be affected.”

‘Decisions Chancellor has made do not happen in a vacuum’

Deputy First Minister Huw Irranca-Davies told LabourList that he applauds the work that farmers’ unions are doing in their own analysis of the proposed tax hike and trying to outline an alternative route forward.

Speaking on a panel alongside representatives of NFU Cymru and the FUW, he said: “I do think every individual farm business needs to look at what is the individual impact of this within their area.

“We do have some significant challenges in this space. It’s not just the inheritance tax increase, it’s succession planning as well.

“My message to those outside is first of all, to work with us in the work we are doing in Wales, along with the unions, to make those representations to the Treasury, but also be cognisant of the fact that the decisions that Rachel Reeves has made do not happen in a vacuum.

“Having been a minister in both administrations, I can’t imagine the shock and horror of a Chancellor walking in to find not only did she inherit where the economy was, but there were things promised and committed to that had no lines of funding allocated to them. I don’t think Rachel Reeves is making any decisions lightly.

“I think what Rachel Reeves is saying is we need to find a way in which farmers who also rely on the same public services that we have, that had been promised that investment, now also now need to be part of that wider societal thing to say we are genuinely all in this together.”

Irranca-Davies also said that, if unions can put forward an alternative analysis, they should do so but “do it in a way that actually brings down the heat in this and actually says let’s look at the data”.

‘Conversation needs to be based in fact rather than perception’

Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens echoed the First Minister’s comments and said the conversation on inheritance tax reform needs to be based in “fact and reality rather than perception”.

In an interview with LabourList, she said: “I think the numbers need explaining – if you are a farming couple and you want to leave your farm to your children so that it passes through the generations, you can do that. You can leave your farm and using all the tax allowances that are available to you, you can leave an estate of up to £3 million to your children without paying a single penny of inheritance tax.

“If you are fortunate enough to have assets that go beyond that, you then only pay at half the normal rate of inheritance tax and you have a period of ten years in which to pay your tax liability.”

She also stressed that, according to Treasury figures, only around 500 farms a year would be impacted by the Budget announcement and also underlined the need to secure funding to improve public services.

“Farmers use the NHS, farmers send their children to state schools – we all want good public services and we were very clear in our manifesto that we would ask those who had the broadest ability to pay,” she said.

Prime Minister defends tough decisions in speech

While the Prime Minister did not directly address the concerns of protesters in his speech to the conference, Keir Starmer said: “Make no mistake – I will defend our decisions in the Budget all day long. I will defend facing up to the harsh light of fiscal reality, I will defend the tough decisions, that were necessary to stabilise our economy, I will defend protecting the payslips of working people, fixing the foundations of our economy, and investing in the future of Britain and the future of Wales, finally turning the page on austerity – once and for all.”