[Music]
Okay, I get
[Music]
Welcome to Sputnik orbiting the world
with me George Galloway. Gat missed the
bus but she'll be along in a minute. The
British government in the 1980s
destroyed the miners union. It was mere
collateral damage. The destruction of
the mining industry which still had a
thousand years of coal under its feet.
The mining communities in their hundreds
of thousands then left on the
postindustrial scrap heap and of course
the country itself which thereafter was
dependent on imported coal oil under
other people's countries and for which
we had to be ready to go to war although
foreignowned nuclear power plants were
briefly touted as an alternative. Now 30
years later, the same British government
is stealing the miners pension funds.
Peter Stanovich is a rising star in
British politics, and he's using his
advocacy skills to speak up for the
miners. And Leslie Mo is one of those
retired miners whose pension fund has
been nicked. Peter, Leslie, thanks for
joining us. Peter, first of all, just
tell us what this scandal is. Thank you,
George. I'm a a very black and white
sort of guy. I look at things as right
and wrong. And when Les came to me with
his story a week ago now, I literally
rocketed from astonishment to anger to
absolute outrage. What we're talking
about here is a pension fund that our
miners, national heroes, paid into over
generations with their blood, with their
sweat, many with their lives. All of
these guys have got health related
conditions now. They pay this money into
their pension fund. We come to 1994 and
under John Major's government, he
decides to privatize the coal injury and
the government says to the miners,
"We'll underwrite your pension, but we
want a whopping extortionate 50% of any
surplus." And our miners are railroaded
into this agreement. Now putting that
into context, successive governments
through that agreement have robbed and
robbed is the only way to look at this 8
billion pounds at least 8 billion quid
from our miners pension fund. And we've
recently seen this response to an FAI
request from the Treasury saying the
fund has not cost the government a
single penny. So the government takes
successive governments take 8 billion
quid from the miners. It doesn't cost
them a penny. At the same time, over the
same period, we see governments bailing
out greedy bankers, negligent bankers to
the tune of 124 billion pounds at least.
It's an absolute scandal, an absolute
outrage. I I had never heard of this
until you started advocating for it.
This is one of the reasons why I wanted
you on the on the show. Why has this
been ignored? I' I've got to tell you um
when they came to me with their story
and I read this I personally felt this
sense of shame because firstly how could
we do this to national heroes that kept
our homes our hospitals our schools warm
that kept the wheels of our industry
turning working in the most
incomprehensibly dangerous conditions I
felt personally ashamed I knew nothing
about this and then I go to um research
it there's very little out there and I
had to come to the conclusion that
mainstream media has deliberately kept
this story away from the um public. I
threw down the gauntlet after I put out
those two films. Uh two mainstream media
and I said, "Who has the to report this
absolute travesty of justice?" Two
people contact me. One Steve Toppel at
the Canary who we both admire immensely
and your producer Tim Allen. And here we
are. And that says something about
mainstream media and where to go for the
truth from Little Acorns. Great oaks can
grow. Do you know something? Um
something that really struck me about
the two films that I put out was this.
Over the last week, I've been inundated
with messages from miners all over the
country that have said, "Peter, thank
you for putting those films out. We felt
that the British people had abandoned
us, the miners." That's not true.
Because when you look at the literally
hundreds of comments on the films that I
put out, there's this outpouring of
love, affection, respect, and admiration
for our miners because the British
people know what our miners did for us.
Leslie, I I I'm an honorary member of
the National Union of Mine Workers since
1982. Marty Lodge. Yes. South Wales
area. Marty Lodge. Their pain means a
lot to me. There are not many days that
go by when I don't remember the great
battle battles that uh I stood with you
on. This is a very considerable insult
added to the gigantic injury the mining
communities have already suffered, isn't
it? It it's it's a
tremendous an absolutely tremendous
outrage. There's no other way of saying
it apart from it being an outrage. No
other section of society would have been
treated like this. It is a punishment.
And what happened is the establishment
has decided to punish the miners all the
way to the graves. And they're doing it
financially through our pension scheme.
They tried it earlier as you will
probably know through the Ridley
Commission. Yeah. And then once that the
pits have gone and privatizing, they
still wanted to punish us. They wanted
us to punish us for daring to stand up
and fight for our jobs and communities.
That's what they've done. And they're
doing it through our pension scheme as
you know uses all the way to the grave.
That's right. 8 billion pounds. Well,
imagine that's an estimate could have
done in the mining communities, many of
which are uh basically heaps now of
desolated uh people. I mean, I I don't
want to physically make the analogy too
strong, but the the situation that's
been left in the mining communities is
now absolutely desperate. Mass
unemployment, social problems, drug and
alcohol abuse,
hopelessness. 8 billion pounds could
have transformed that. Yeah, that that's
only a conservative figure. 8 billion.
It is not the actual full figure because
I believe we're we're actually if we had
an actuary look at it, I think we'll be
looking at 12 billion. I think it could
be as high as 20 billion. And let's
remember, we're talking about successive
governments here. I think Steve Toppel
reported yesterday that in
2003, Tony Blair's government milked
this pension for 400 million quid at a
point when stocks and shares had taken a
dive. They almost bankrupted the miners
pension fund. We're talking about a
Blairite government here doing just
that. Well, uh that doesn't that doesn't
surprise us. No, of course. Uh but how
did the union agree? Perhaps they had no
choice agree to this uh ploy by which
they took 50% of any. They didn't
actually agree to it. What what happened
was after the strike of 95 there was
five elected trustees and five appointed
trustees. The five elected trustees were
all
NUM. The government then removed an NUM
trustee saying that the UDM because of
the numbers of its members this was the
breakaway scab union that worked to
break the strike. I'm I I'm going to
correct you a little bit there. I I
don't call it a union. I don't give it
that credibility. It's a government
agency. George, what happened was David
Art came Margaret Thatcher's advisor. He
provided the funding. He provided the
expertise. He was the designer of the
breakaway. He was the man who educated
them what to do. So seeing as it's
government agency or Margaret Thatcher's
advisor and the and private money, it's
their agent.
They imposed a government agent onto the
board which was Neil Gateex which has
been in papers not long back for he was
stealing money from an old folks home.
He provided the vote to give the
government access to our% of your he was
the man who did it. Now that this this
issue is in the public domain, there are
serious questions that need to be asked
about how this agreement came into
being. I've only been involved a week
and from what I can see trying to put
the pieces together. We've got the
government of today, John Major's
government being a party to the
agreement. We've got um British coal,
but at that point in time still part of
the nationalized industry. So we've got
the government and British coal one and
the same thing. And then we've got a
handful of trustees of the pension fund.
Now, how on earth did a handful of
trustees to this pension fund get
involved in this deal? Was there no
actuary report to tell them what and
those you're a legal man. Well, that
these trustees had a a fiduciary
fiduciary duty to the members whose
funds they were and and you know, one
would imagine that um the trustees of a
pension fund would have access to a
whole building full of actuaries
chomping out figures who would be
saying, "Hang on a moment. If we do this
deal, it's unlikely to cost the
government anything because sadly miners
have a short life expectancy, but
they'll be milking us for billions of
pounds forever. It's extraordinary.
Yeah, there actually was an act
report. Wilson and Wyatt was an in-house
actually service for the government.
What their report suggested a sharing of
15% for the government and 85 for the
NUM. What happened was they totally
ignored it. Was that report shared with
the trustees of the fund? Well, I don't
know about
that. So, the government's own in-house
actury recommended the government get
15% of any surplus in your pension fund,
but they actually took 50. The
information is in the public domain.
It's not something I've just conjured
up. It is there for everybody to see.
Everybody in this country. Well, that
that just that makes me even more
outraged, George, because think let's
put this into context. There there is um
an actuary report then you believe
obtained by the government recommending
an 85% split which in itself is
outrageous. Was that report shared with
the trustees of the pension fund? If it
was, why was this information not
disseminated to the miners? And if it
wasn't shared with the trustees, why the
hell didn't the trustees get their own
actuary report? You know, it it's an
absolute outrage. There needs to be a
public inquiry, George, into how this
disgraceful agreement came into being.
And and I think that's a demand that we
can win. Yeah. It's uh it's it's one
thing that the miners union was
destroyed, that the mining industry was
destroyed, that the community was
destroyed. But as Leslie put it in very
very eloquent terms there, they they are
determined to hunt and punish the miners
all the way to the grave. As you put it,
they've got a short life expectancy.
What happens next? What's your next
stage? There is going to be a rally in
Liverpool, which Les has arranged for
the 27th of September. Yeah, you will
probably be at the conference, will you,
George? Uh, no. But I I can be at your
uh rally. Unfortunately, I'm not yet
welcome in the labor. It would be it
would be incredible if you could be
there. But just to put this into
context, I I suggested to Les, why don't
you make your rally a march and he said,
"We can't do that because so many of the
surviving members are now invalids.
Their knees are knackered. They've got
chronic chest conditions because of the
cold dust they inhale. They can't mark.
I've been down uh many coal mines and
you correctly described it uh earlier.
These men are heroes, national heroes,
and they've been robbed. Gentlemen,
thanks for coming on board this neck.
Coming up next, coups to the left of us,
jokers to the right. Just who is stuck
in the middle with the people of Latin
America? Stay tuned.
Welcome back to Sputnik and Guyatri's
bus finally arrived. The Olympic Games
have come and gone, leaving the people
of Brazil undoubtedly worse off and a
new dictatorship being formed. In
Argentina, a similar coup is being
carried through against the former
president and her political allies. In
Venezuela, allout civil conflict remains
a possibility as US backed opposition
forces close in for a kill on President
Maduro. In fact, everywhere except
Nicaragua, the left so recently
hegimmonic is on the retreat. Joining us
now to discuss the wise and the
workforce is Dr. Juan Griera of the
University College London. Dr. Juan,
thanks for uh coming on board the
Sputnik. Uh do you accept our thesis uh
for a start that the left is everywhere
on the retreat with the exception of
Nicaragua? Yes. So let me thank you for
uh having me here. And so I think it's
the great question of today. So what has
happened with the so-called pink tide?
Why it's retreating everywhere? What's
happened? Why is that like witnessing
the end of uh a decade of left of
progressive governments in in the
region? that were certainly an exception
in in the world. So, um I would like
though to to to question a bit the the
ways this is happening because this is
interesting as well and the ways we we
characterize what's happening. Um so I
would begin begin by saying we shouldn't
use the word dictator dictatorship so
easily because the region did uh new
proper dictatorships I mean military
power and a violent military power that
led to the disappearance and torture and
uh and killing of many left militants.
So what we are witnessing now is
something that's uh
probably kind of could be called soft
coups uh in the case of Brazil in the
case of Honduras uh certainly the case
of Paraguay those are those are tweaking
or ways of using the the democratic
system uh in a way that's fairly
undemocratic probably um in the case of
Argentina though we should we should see
basically the electoral defeat of the
former president. So the
characterization is certainly right and
uh I I agree that we should explain
what's going on with why just before you
leave that point then if uh if someone
is removed from power democratically
uh and then the new power moves to
criminalize marginalize
uh and even if they can imprison and
neutralize the people they have just
defeated. Yeah, I agree with you. It's
not the same as the General Lisimos that
we used to have, but it is the beginning
of a soft dictatorship at least. Yes. Um
it is, but there is also something to be
said about uh how those new governments
are going to be uh are going to to
sustain governability. So in the case of
dictatorships, you have governability
through basically force. in these new
cases. I think what's what's pathling as
well is that there is some degree of
support for the macro government in the
case of Argentina. Uh it's less so in
the case of ter in Brazil. Uh and
certainly well it was it was a different
case they went away but sometimes what
you also find is that this new right is
actually being popular among the section
of of the population. Uh that was also
the case with the with the old military
dictatorships. The problem of
governability is not a problem just for
the left, but it's also a problem for
the new governments. How the hell they
going to stay in power?
Did the left make and uh I'll tell you
before you answer. I think uh the answer
to it is yes. Did the left make a series
of bad decisions? Uh were they guilty of
some of the failures and worse than
failures that their opposition accused
them of? The most common thing for the
left center uh like the left center
reading of of the pink tide is to say
precisely that the pink tide is first of
all the product of um successful social
movements like that in in the in the in
2000s managed to to defeat neberalism
and then uh gave birth to these new
governments, right? Uh and so um and now
they made many mistakes or they were
unable to to deal with suppose with
corruption in their governments or or
they were unable to deal with some other
new forces that were threatening them
such as the US or the new right. Yeah.
The US that's what I'm particularly
interested. Do they perhaps have they
perhaps focused more on form ra than its
structural content and that's why that
why is is fading? Uh yes I think well
anti-neol liberalism anti-US
domination well yeah I mean the of
course the the the the political
incidence of of the US is constant in
the region there's nothing I wouldn't
say that it's it's a new thing or it has
changed significantly but but where I
was trying to to go is it's right though
all those governments presented
themselves as anti-oliberal
um and they were in a way the product of
the struggles of the '9s but but I I
think that if you explain the pink tide
this way, you can explain the rights of
a pink tide, but you fail short in
explain its demise. So what what went
wrong? Did they betray the movements?
Did they fail to do the right thing or
were they defeated by the by the right?
Um I think so say another explanation is
the right-wing explanation. These were
just populist movements u rotten and
crony capitalism uh leadership that was
completely personal. And so in that
sense they can explain the demise
because it it was about time in one like
in their explanation but they can
explain the rise like why would someone
like took power if they are so were so
rotten and corrupt and so on. So uh I
think the the way out of the puzzle is
to to see that so that the pink tide was
not the the the successful product of of
uh of social movements but rather the
response to social movements. So the the
the uh say the bourgeoa response to
social movements. So and and and if if
you look at at especially throughout the
region uh the more radical the social
movements managed to be suppose
Venezuela with the caricasso or
Argentina in 2001 uh or maybe uh the
case of Bolivia that had the the
the war of water and then the war of
gas. So the more radical the social
movements, the more radical the the the
the products of of of them uh th those
those cases those countries who didn't
have uh such an important mobilization
such as Brazil or Uruguay then had
really timid like more kind of more
close to
neoliberal social nealism case that they
just didn't change people's lives for
the better enough. Well, and therefore
they had no base from Venezuela to hold
on to them. Yeah, Venezuela is a
different case always. Uh it is true
they didn't do that. Um but but I think
they they they were there to do so
because of course this they all came
through at a moment of a large commodity
move. So uh the the region was having
more money than usually and uh there was
like there was certainly some well we
could say moderate or but but some could
say that's what we can we could do like
there was distri redistribution of money
certainly and and if you compare um
people's well-being in the '9s and in
the 2000s you can say most people's
lives improved. what they didn't do was
just like any kind of uh structural
trans transformation and they they came
I think uh one of the main things they
did was institutionalize and demobilize
social the social movements. So they
what used to be uh quite active social
movements where one way or the other
incorporated into the state and the
state become to to to handle their
demands. So some people in Brazil speak
of the pastoralization of the social
movements. I don't know if that makes
sense but uh it's an interesting image
of of how what actually happened. So I
think if if you if you look at that then
uh the end of the pink type comes with
the end of the community boom. So the
capacities of redistribution becomes way
way less um well yeah you have less
capac like less capacity to redistribute
than the past. And the second thing is
that you have managed in 10 years to
institutionalize most of of the
conflict. Isn't it the case that amongst
the big tide there was a lot of talk of
revolution but there wasn't really a
revolution. uh this was moderate
reformism
and that moderate reformism didn't uh
alter things enough to create well I I
had the extraordinary good fortune to be
part of a conversation uh with Fidel
Castro and the late president Ugo Chavez
in which uh the
commandante Castro said uh you don't
need to talk about socialism all the
time just do good things and Then people
when they like them explain, you know,
this is actually socialism. Uh the the
re I suppose the question in the time
we've got left is can the left come
back? Will the pinks be back at least?
Yes. Uh I think the left will need to
reconstruct itself in like not just uh
not just in Latin America but
everywhere. uh and I would say it c it
can certainly come back in in Latin
America once uh once it's able to show
the limits of uh more neoliberalism and
more austerity which is the only
proposal the the ruling classes seems to
have. So it's actually a challenge but I
hope I hope there is space for that.
Well that's an encouraging not what
about Nicaragua just in 30 seconds. Uh,
okay. Is it Danielle uh back and uh back
in something like the previous guys? I
think he's back in something like the
previous guys, but that's just in 30
seconds.
What an excellent answer, Dr. Juan.
Thanks for coming on board the spot,
Nick. Thank you. And thanks for the
audience.
And now it's your turn to tell us what
you think through the portals of social
media. What's happening, guy? So on the
big scandal of the pension theft,
Ricardo Picasso says, "Well, Tory MPs
could have a whip round and come up with
most of the 8 billion pounds there and
then, you know, 8 billion from areas
that have been economically devastated
for 30 years and will be for
generations. Utterly transformative."
And yes, this is an ongoing theft. This
is stealing 50% of the surplus of a
pension fund of workers who die early
and therefore a pension fund that
doesn't usually have to pay out very
much. And on post Olympic Brazil uh and
the decline of pink tide Euromman and
activist says well Brazil has
interference from USA regime since 1960
which means millions of dollars were
sent to the Brazilian military. Oh,
billions. Uh, there's an awful lot of
coffee in Brazil. Awful lot of
corruption, too. Well, that's all the
tweet that we have for today, which alas
means that's the end of the show. You
can stay in touch with us on social
media through Twitter at
RT_Sputnik on Facebook, Sputnik on
Russia Today. It's goodbye from me,
Gatri and from me, George Galloway. It's
been marvelous.
[Music]