Oh Maggie how I loathed thee.....

Noodley · June 2007

The behaviour of the Police during the miners strike was deplorable. And there speaks a former Police officer who has been involved in Policing an industrial strike - that'll confuse the hell out of all those who have alleged I am a leftie [;)] I await the heads exploding as they try to figure that one out. I hope spire survives it all - most of the rest I would quite happily have explode away. [}:)][:D]

workers_united · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sabreur

Were these the same police who'd just been taunting the miners (who weren't receiving strike pay and therefore subsisting on benefits) <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
They had no strike pay because they hadn't held a ballot and the subsistence benefits they received were coming from us who paid taxes and got paid less than them.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Given the straits that ex-mining towns have found themselves since the pit closures please show how closing the mines was a good thing
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't think it was a good idea to close the mines and it was another Thatcher screw-up, in my books. I think that, at least the pits should have been put on a care and maintenance basis so that they could be readily brought back to full scale production when needed.

But... I don't see any positives in allowing any group to practice extortion against the real workers of the country.

Simon L2 · June 2007

the truly awful truth is that however awful Thatcher was (and she was) Blair has been worse.

I can hardly believe I've just written that...

speshcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

the truly awful truth is that however awful Thatcher was (and she was) Blair has been worse.

I can hardly believe I've just written that...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Too late, you just have. [:D]

And it's a fair assessment, because Blair could have mitigated the worst excesses of Thatcherism without necessarily scaring off the disaffected Tory voters he seduced in 1997.

He didn't, and if anything, the negative side effects of Thatcherism have actually worsened during his premiership.

<hr noshade size="1">"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein)

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spesh

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

the truly awful truth is that however awful Thatcher was (and she was) Blair has been worse.

I can hardly believe I've just written that...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Too late, you just have. [:D]

And it's a fair assessment, because Blair could have mitigated the worst excesses of Thatcherism without necessarily scaring off the disaffected Tory voters he seduced in 1997.

He didn't, and if anything, the negative side effects of Thatcherism have actually worsened during his premiership.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm curious as to what you think these 'excesses' and 'negative side effects' are? Most people don't appear to be that bothered by them...

gbyers · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spesh

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

the truly awful truth is that however awful Thatcher was (and she was) Blair has been worse.

I can hardly believe I've just written that...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Too late, you just have. [:D]

And it's a fair assessment, because Blair could have mitigated the worst excesses of Thatcherism without necessarily scaring off the disaffected Tory voters he seduced in 1997.

He didn't, and if anything, the negative side effects of Thatcherism have actually worsened during his premiership.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm curious as to what you think these 'excesses' and 'negative side effects' are? Most people don't appear to be that bothered by them...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If you don't know what the excesses and negative side effects are, then how can you state that most people aren't bothered by them?

________________________________________________________________________________
Anyone expecting to see a witty and imaginitive signature here obviously hasn't seen my username.

Noodley · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gbyers
If you don't know what the excesses and negative side effects are, then how can you state that most people aren't bothered by them?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

...nor has he read the thread...

Unknown · June 2007

To all the usual suspects...

Hadn't realised how sad, bitter and twisted some people could be .

Before Mrs T this country was going down the pan and industry was already in terminal decline aided by some irresponsible union leaders in the late 60s and 70s who thought it their duty to bring this country to its knees by striking at "the drop of a hat".

In the end they even bit the hand that fed them (Callaghan) and thereby confirmed that whilst they behaved as they did no Govt. could trust them- giving Mrs T every excuse when she got into power to neuter them.

In addition the average consumer at the time in the UK was eager to buy cheaper, often better made goods from abroad.
For instance If BL cars had been better made and more loyalty had been shown by UK consumers/ workers BL might still exist.

Desperate means were needed to get this country out of the mess and anarchy and avoid any future regular trips to the IMF.

It amazes me how much the legacy of Wilson and Callaghan and Heath cost us- with better leadership at the time Mrs T would not have been elected and any measures to get this country out of the mess it was in would not have been so severe .

R P Rodgers

http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/just_ ... _Simpsons/

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
"Methinks it is a weasel"

Noodley · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rprodgers

To all the usual suspects...

Hadn't realised how sad, bitter and twisted some people could be .

Before Mrs T this country was going down the pan and industry was already in terminal decline aided by some irresponsible union leaders in the late 60s and 70s who thought it their duty to bring this country to its knees by striking at "the drop of a hat".

In the end they even bit the hand that fed them (Callaghan) and thereby confirmed that whilst they behaved as they did no Govt. could trust them- giving Mrs T every excuse when she got into power to neuter them.

In addition the average consumer at the time in the UK was eager to buy cheaper, often better made goods from abroad.
For instance If BL cars had been better made and more loyalty had been shown by UK consumers/ workers BL might still exist.

Desperate means were needed to get this country out of the mess and anarchy and avoid any future regular trips to the IMF.

It amazes me how much the legacy of Wilson and Callaghan and Heath cost us- with better leadership at the time Mrs T would not have been elected and any measures to get this country out of the mess it was in would not have been so severe .

R P Rodgers

http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/just_ ... _Simpsons/

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
"Methinks it is a weasel"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

what was your point?

oldwelshman · June 2007

What a load of bolloack!!!
Got everything they deserved? What did I dieserve?
I was 22 on strike for a year, even though in wales we voted against the strike but refused to cross picket lines.
I had no strike pay or any benefit of any kind for a whole year.
I would like to see you survive in such circumstances!!!
I went picketting twice, mainly to get the œ10 on offer!!!! only to be met by gestapo type "police" taunting us abouth their thousands earned in overtime, and also many soldiers dressed as "police". How do I know that? I was there with one of the soldiers fathers who actually met his son on picket line and he wasvery embarrassed.
We never looked for violence but there were several commy activists and general trouble makers who were, along with many police also intent on having a scrap!!
In the end they closed all SOuth Wales mines and now they are trying to open up four this year now they realise the oil and gas supplies are becoming depleted and imported coal is now not so cheap.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by workers_united

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Numerous times, but not necessarily on this thread. i still weep with anger when i see the tv footage of bullying Thatcherite company coppers, tooled up in protective riot gear, on horse back waving batons and shields, and then cracking the skulls of innocent working people fighting for their jobs, pits and communities wearing only teeshirts and jeans.

Some paying back to do.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This will be the same poor miners who:
- would only allow their sons to get jobs in the mines (me and my brothers couldn't get in because we weren't part of the miners mafia)
- chose to strike against the nation when the oil crisis was already causing power cuts in essential services
- murdered an innocent miner in Wales because he didn't support the strike
- kick the heads in of the Police (shown in Andrew Marr's) program but normally edited out
- said they would bring down the democratically elected government.

I'm no Thatcher fan and don't forgive her for taking away benefits to 16 year olds and forcing them to sleep rough but the miners got (almost) all they deserved. It's just a pity it didn't happen sooner.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

ankev1 · June 2007

Oldwelshman's post seems to back up the view that the miners were the victim of two irreconcilable forces. The first thing to remember is that the NUM (in effect Arthur Scargill and his politburo) had previously brought down the Heath government. Scargill and much of the then TUC were essentially socialist revolutionaries and wanted the UK remoulded accordingly. Strikes in key industries were their weapons of choice and the workers concerned their ammunition. Surely nobody would like to seriously suggest that Scargill and his ilk had the welfare of the miners and other workers at heart?

I read somewhere that whilst still in opposition Thatcher realised that a showdown with one or more of the big unions (probably the NUM) was likely and so began planning how to win the inevitable battle. If the government had enough nerve, will and the means, it would win, if not a la Heath/Callaghan governments the NUM would. In the end it was the miners themselves who lost. Scargill didn't give a toss about them and, having failed to achieve his political ends by direct means, went on to form his Socialist Labour Party and at the ballot box has subsequently enjoyed the resounding success with which we are all so familiar.

The miners strike was effectively a civil war in disguise in order to decide whether the country was to be run by the TUC (elected only by its members) or the government, elected in a general election. I suspect most people are glad that the government won but you've got to feel desparately sorry for the miners who were used as pawns by political extremists.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Brains

Alzheimer's: Not only did Pinchet recover, so did Saunders (see Guinness trial). However Wilson and Regan only caught it imideatly they left power
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you'll find that Wilson left public life because he knew he had Alzheimer's.

I've been Thamed !!

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Noodley
...

...nor has he read the thread...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Which you know not to be true as I've argued with you earlier in the same thread!

My question was in response to spesh's reply to SimonL2, who hadn't previously contributed, not the forum in general! Since my flippant comment has confused things, then let's recap:

SimonL2" said: "the truly awful truth is that however awful Thatcher was (and she was) Blair has been worse."

To which spesh replied: "it's a fair assessment, because Blair could have mitigated the worst excesses of Thatcherism without necessarily scaring off the disaffected Tory voters he seduced in 1997. ... He didn't, and if anything, the negative side effects of Thatcherism have actually worsened during his premiership."

OK, I know this is Soapbox and we shouldn't repress SimonL2's fondness for hyperbole, but let's just think a bit harder about that 'Blair worse than Thatcher' claim.

Here's a list of some of Blair's 'Thatcherite excesses':

+ The Minimum Wage (the Tories said this wasn't possible because of inflation, the burden on industry etc etc)

+ the various tax credits (for all its failings this system has benefited a lot of single parents and helped overcome the benefit trap for a lot of people trying to get back into work)

+ Massively increased spending on health and education and other public services

+ Significant progress on equality- civil partnerships for example

+ Success in Northern Ireland, no dbout helped by not having a government that relied on unionist MPs.

+ All accompanied by unprecedented economic stability and greatly reduced unemployment.

Now I'm sure most of us are very disappointed by New Labour's failings on transport and environmental policy; and very angry about the disaster in Iraq. But let's get this in proportion please- Blair has done an awful lot of things the Tories would never have done. The proportion of GDP spent by the state has actually increased; contrary to the whinging from the far left Brown has actually been a re- distributive chancellor with the better off paying comparatively higher taxes as more people have gone into the 40% band etc. I think you moaning- minnies should count your blessings before you find another Tory government in power!

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

Oldwelshman's post seems to back up the view that the miners were the victim of two irreconcilable forces. The first thing to remember is that the NUM (in effect Arthur Scargill and his politburo) had previously brought down the Heath government. Scargill and much of the then TUC were essentially socialist revolutionaries and wanted the UK remoulded accordingly. Strikes in key industries were their weapons of choice and the workers concerned their ammunition. Surely nobody would like to seriously suggest that Scargill and his ilk had the welfare of the miners and other workers at heart?

I read somewhere that whilst still in opposition Thatcher realised that a showdown with one or more of the big unions (probably the NUM) was likely and so began planning how to win the inevitable battle. If the government had enough nerve, will and the means, it would win, if not a la Heath/Callaghan governments the NUM would. In the end it was the miners themselves who lost. Scargill didn't give a toss about them and, having failed to achieve his political ends by direct means, went on to form his Socialist Labour Party and at the ballot box has subsequently enjoyed the resounding success with which we are all so familiar.

The miners strike was effectively a civil war in disguise in order to decide whether the country was to be run by the TUC (elected only by its members) or the government, elected in a general election. I suspect most people are glad that the government won but you've got to feel desparately sorry for the miners who were used as pawns by political extremists.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I agree totally. Had Scargill been a democrat, he would have called a ballot. However, as a marxist revolutionary, he just wanted to bring the government down.

redcogs · June 2007

One or two ill informed posters above are blaming the mineworkers and/or their representatives for the crushing of the coal industry following the strike of 84/85 - presumably its easier to blame the victims rather than face the brutal reality of Thatcher's industrial vandalism.

Those among you believing that the strike was in some way undemocratic, and that Scargill had the extraordinary ability to bounce many tens of thousands of miners into strike action against their wishes need a history lesson: It necessarily begins with the fact that Scargill's ascendancy within the NUM was based on his widely aired political argument that it was possible for the miners to positively influence the future of the coal industry. Scargill won that argument, and was consequently elected to the presidency of the NUM in 1981 by 70.3% of miners, on a very open and public platform of militant resistance to pit closures - an area of crucial concern for pitmen who'd for decades been very vulnerable to the swing of the jobs axe. The campaign against pit closures actually began in October 1983 when the NUM special conference (a thoroughly democratic forum) instituted an immediate overtime ban, a fact that refutes the suggestion that Scargill had chosen a bad time (Spring 1984 when the strike started) to begin the resistance. The ban on overtime working was particularly effective because it was very widely (ie democratically) supported - and it lost the NCB 30% of its normal capacity for four months in the run up to Cortonwoods closure (the 'spark' which produced the strike). The NUMs democratic tradition was also evident at the special delegate conference which decided to issue the strike call on 19th April 1984. In the weeks prior to that conference all the NUM areas from Scotland to Kent had democratically decided what course to pursue, and each area delegate put their view and voted accordingly.

There is no question whatsoever that the struggle by miners to protect their pits, communities, and their way of life was a democratic struggle, and that it had been democratically sanctioned in accordance with the NUMs rule book at every stage. The evidence for this? Within two weeks of the strike call over 80% of the workforce were out and fighting for their very livelihoods against the most vicious lying and ugly government of the 20th century. The miners struggle was heroic - when they lost, we were all diminished.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

The evidence for this? Within two weeks of the strike call over 80% of the workforce were out

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But if there had been a ballot and a vote in favour of a strike, then wouldn't the remaining 20% have accepted the view of the majority and joined the strike? It is arguable that without the help of the working miners, the government would have lost.

redcogs · June 2007

The 20% of scab miners were those, mainly from Nottinghamshire, who fell for the awful manipulative lies peddled by Thatcher that their jobs would be safe. Nott's mines had easily extractable coal from deep seams by comparison with pits from elsewhere, and they falsely believed that the enforced contraction of the industry would not touch them. The history of the coal industry since 1985 shows them to be utterly misled and deluded fools.

please look up to the stars.. ***

mjones · June 2007

But why not hold a ballot redcogs? By not doing so Scargill gave the Government the ability to use the full force of the law against his union. If he had the support you claim he has, why didn't he hold a ballot?

simoncp · June 2007

Why didn't the miners keep their mines open after Thatcher decided to pull the plug on state ownership? Because they didn't pay. The miners expected everyone else to subsidise their wages.

gbyers · June 2007

Govt trade union reform legislation, introduced early in the first thatcher term, outlawed secondary picketing and made strike ballots compulsory. Scargill decided that complying with this legislation was not something he could allow his union to do. So, no ballot (chanting miners at numerous rallies in 1984 - you can stick you're ****ing ballot up your ar*e). The TUC urged NUM to hold a ballot - anyone remember a noose being dangled by miners at a public meeting addressed by TUC gen sec (Norman Willis?).

Anyway, this decision was a fatal mistake by Scargill, the forces of the state could therefore uphold the law by stopping cars on approaches to pits, massing police and army in disguise at picketed sites and generally waging war on the miners.

Stockpiling coal at power stations through 1983 meant there was no danger of power cuts or adverse effects on the general population so nor repeat of the situation that brought down heath.

Scargill could have won this battle - working people whose jobs and communities were disappearing - against a governemnt that frankly didn't give a damn. He messed up though and instead we got the eighties society and its legacy determined by monetarist economics.

But he was right, the govt didn't want a coal industry and by he end of the eighties we didn't have one. Not because it fitted with energy policy or economics but because Thatcher wanted rid of mining and union influence - not the act of a great leader.

________________________________________________________________________________
Anyone expecting to see a witty and imaginitive signature here obviously hasn't seen my username.

redcogs · June 2007

The NUM decided democratically to strike, through their usual forums, and didn't need a national ballot vote to do so.

Any attempt to organise a ballot in Yorkshire would have led to lynching of the NUM leadership because it was well understood amongst the rank and file miners that trade unions shouldn't offer opportunities to one section of the membership who work in favourable geological conditions to vote to sack other sections of the membership where mining conditions were often atrocious.

Under the circumstances, the NUM decision not to ballot was the correct one.

The reason the strike went on to defeat relates to the failure of the TUC and Labour Party to organise appropriate sympathy action amongst other sections of the working class.

please look up to the stars.. ***

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gbyers

But he was right, the govt didn't want a coal industry and by he end of the eighties we didn't have one. Not because it fitted with energy policy or economics but because Thatcher wanted rid of mining and union influence - not the act of a great leader.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You are correct that the government didn't want a coal industry. That's because it did not pay its way, and industries that don't pay their way need to be shut down by their owners so they don't lose ever more money for the shareholders. With a state owned industry the shareholders are every person in the country - not just those who work in that industry and benefit from subsidised wages.

There was nothing, and there remains nothing, stopping anyone digging up coal in Britain on a large scale. If it ever becomes economic to do so then we can be sure that someone will do it.

redcogs · June 2007

Yeah, its better to use coal from abroad mined under slave conditions by child labour, or to use coal mined abroad where enlightened governments continued to 'subsidise' production, rather than retain an indigenous industry with hundreds of years of reserves.

Fool.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Any attempt to organise a ballot in Yorkshire would have led to lynching of the NUM leadership because it was well understood amongst the rank and file miners that trade unions shouldn't offer opportunities to one section of the membership who work in favourable geological conditions to vote to sack other sections of the membership where mining conditions were often atrocious.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't follow this at all. Surely the issue was on of pit closures and the miners in Nottinghamshire would either show solidarity with those miners whose pits were under threat and vote for the strike or, accept the vote of the majority and go out on strike with them?

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Yeah, its better to use coal from abroad mined under slave conditions by child labour, or to use coal mined abroad where enlightened governments continued to 'subsidise' production, rather than retain an indigenous industry with hundreds of years of reserves.

Fool.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Perhaps there is an opportunity for you here to open up a 'Fair Trade' coalmine, paying 'fair' wages to honest Yorkshire folk. What's stopping you? Guardian readers would flock to buy the electricity made from such coal. All your profits could be used to finance the revolution.

The rest of us don't want to pay more for our energy than we need. to to.

redcogs · June 2007

Do you seriously think such arguments were not aired at the NUM national conferences Patrick. Of course they were, and they were resoundingly rejected.

The Notts miners were also deeply and widely mistrusted because they had earlier unilaterally introduced a productivity scheme in their area, despite an NUM ballot result which opposed pit by pit productivity agreements.

What it boiled down to was a simple issue of solidarity - the principle that trade unionist don't vote to sack other trade unionists. That is what the Nottingham lot wanted.

please look up to the stars.. ***

peterbr · June 2007

For the same reason the people who thought the motor industry should be subsidized and then bought a BMW, Volvo, Citreon or practically anything else.

They are a bunch of hypocrites - they simply want to spend other people's money.

<hr noshade size="1">
Elephants and Ivory go together in perfect harmony. Oh Lord, why can't we?

gbyers · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gbyers

But he was right, the govt didn't want a coal industry and by he end of the eighties we didn't have one. Not because it fitted with energy policy or economics but because Thatcher wanted rid of mining and union influence - not the act of a great leader.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You are correct that the government didn't want a coal industry. That's because it did not pay its way, and industries that don't pay their way need to be shut down by their owners so they don't lose ever more money for the shareholders.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So we should buy Russian gas to generate our electricity rather than invest in UK power generation capacity? It's the cheapest option.

Governments have responsibilities stretching ahead decades to deliver security to their peoples - energy, health, defence, employment security. Choice of energy supply impacts on security, employment, environment. UK (plc) is not a corner shop where the arithmentic of the P&L account is all that matters.

________________________________________________________________________________
Anyone expecting to see a witty and imaginitive signature here obviously hasn't seen my username.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Yeah, its better to use coal from abroad mined under slave conditions by child labour, or to use coal mined abroad where enlightened governments continued to 'subsidise' production, rather than retain an indigenous industry with hundreds of years of reserves.

Fool.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Perhaps there is an opportunity for you here to open up a 'Fair Trade' coalmine, paying 'fair' wages to honest Yorkshire folk. What's stopping you? Guardian readers would flock to buy the electricity made from such coal. All your profits could be used to finance the revolution.

The rest of us don't want to pay more for our energy than we need. to to.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So you, the super patriot, who flies a revolting nationalistic flag at every opportunity, welcomed the sacking hundreds of thousands of UK miners and the decimation of their communities for decades.

Stinking hypocrite.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Russell_john · June 2007

I wonder in what way this country would have been different had the NUM won their fight. Would there still be mines open today?

Perhaps not, perhaps all that would have happened is that it deferred the closing of a number of pits. I found it interesting at time to observe how much this fight polarised society. It seemed very much that it was a case of north vs south even rich vs poor.

In the part of England where I grew up there seemed to be little sympathy for the miners but I remember my cousins in Workington being very pro the strike - they could see a strong link between the miners and the then British Steel.

My media memory of the strike was that Scargill presented himself as the 'rapid face of the past' (for want of an expression). It seemed at the time that 'we' were on the cusp of something new and the actions of the miners (infact the shole mining industry) seemed so old fashioned and their actions steeped in industrial antiquity. Perhaps in some ways the miners were a sacrifice to the past. In so far as by purging ourselves of them we purge the collective memories of BL, strikes, 'Red Robbo' et al and all that we associated with the late 70s.

Unfortunately in this media led world Scargil it has also to be said that he lacked the presence to be credible - he may well have reflected the attitudes of the many of his union but he sure came across to many as being fixed and unbending in much the same way that Thatcher did. But here's the hard thing, for many we wanted Thatcher to 'win' because: wasn't it about time the unions were put in their place? Ultimately wasn't that it was all about? The miners and their communities were unfortunately just the collateral damage.

are they wibbin me Centurwion?

Oh Maggie how I loathed thee.....

Comments

Categories