Breaking news: Margaret Thatcher has died

[Admiral Yi]

That's interesting.  What's your source?

[Sheilbh]

That's interesting.  What's your source?

Documentary on the miners' strike.

It compared the 1972 miners' strike, which despite causing far more disruption had widespread public support, and the 1984 miners' strike. The miners in 72 were seen as underpaid (and comparatively they weren't paid a great deal) and in a dangerous job. They hadn't really striked since the war and the Bevin boys (men conscripted to work in mines during the war) were still known about. They were a very popular group. Heath's government bungled it and Heath wasn't popular.

It reminds me of the 'work-ins' in the shipyards during the Heath government.

[derspiess]

Unions suck.

[Josquius]

Who said anything about miners?

I just figured the people you knew who had been through the 70s were from your home town.

The end of mining in my town long predates Thatcher, my grandfathers were miners but not too many of my dad's generation were. My hometown was more of a central town for the outlying mining villages. Most older people I know are in construction or shop workers.

[Admiral Yi]

Documentary on the miners' strike.

It compared the 1972 miners' strike, which despite causing far more disruption had widespread public support, and the 1984 miners' strike. The miners in 72 were seen as underpaid (and comparatively they weren't paid a great deal) and in a dangerous job. They hadn't really striked since the war and the Bevin boys (men conscripted to work in mines during the war) were still known about. They were a very popular group. Heath's government bungled it and Heath wasn't popular.

It reminds me of the 'work-ins' in the shipyards during the Heath government.

Did your documentary get in to specifics about pay?

[Jacob]

Hey I said the same thing, provided a counterexample and wasn't even snarky to you!

Point conceded to you too

[Sheilbh]

Did your documentary get in to specifics about pay?

What sort of specifics?

I can't wait until Peter Hennessy reaches the 70s and I just have to look there

Edit: And worth mentioning the miners ended 72 (and the smaller strike in 74) as some of the best paid manual workers, which is probably another key point in them going from having public support then to losing a lot of it a decade later.

[Neil]

The NUM had been the muscle of the British labour movement for years.  In a very real sense, Scargill was the most powerful man in the world of British labour.  You tend to think that history began in 1979.

You're wrong. The NUM was part of the labour movement but it wasn't a militant part and it wasn't very vocal. I think the 1972 strike was the first strike by the miners in the post-war era. By then they were some of the lowest-paid workers in the country. That combined with the health effects of their job gave them a lot of public sympathy even after it forced a three day week. They only really become radical and Militant - like the rest of the left - in the late 70s-on. Scargill (elected to head them in 1982) represents their turn to radicalism, not their past.

No, I'm right.  Scargill was a pretty big fish even in the early 70s - MI5 was investigating him as being possibly in the pay of Moscow as far back as the Heath years, and it's not like he was the only one.  Mick McGahey shot his mouth off quite a bit and was calling for the army to come out in support of the miners.  There was a battle between old-school trade unionists of the Joe Gormley mold and Communist agitators like McGahey whose goal was to overthrow the government, and Scargill's election wasn't the turning point.  Indeed, Gormley had been hanging on by his fingernails for years, especially after ramming through the production-based wages in the late 70s.  Nevertheless, the local unions were acting as vanguards in the 70s, using the flying pickets, and that's not taking into account the strikes in 1972, 74, 84 and the scare in 82.

[Neil]

She certainly objected to the concept of a gay group identity (she objected to all group identities outside of citizenship).

As most people would.  Let's face it, people who identify as gay are usually pretty bad.

[Sheilbh]

Scargill's election wasn't the turning point but it was the culmination of a period of radicalisation. The experience of success in 72 and 74, combined with deteriorating industrial relations and polarisation strengthened the hand of the militants. But for the majority of the 70s the battle was won by the old school unionists who were interested in winning advantages for the workers rather than a broader political battle - and Gormley's success on production pay undermined the NUM in 1984. The local onions were often as divided as the national leadership so some were dominated by militants while others weren't and, as in the 60s, you had local breakdowns which would cause miners to down tools. But generally the history is of a far more radicalised leadership than membership.

You're right the fight was going on for a while - I mean Gormley was a Special Branch informant precisely because he was worried about growing militancy, and Scargill - but I still think it's fair to say that the success of the radicals was in the late 70s. It ended with Scargill in charge (and he was a democratic centralist if ever there's one), but that is a shift. The miners past was that they hadn't been on strike since 1926 (I thought they had in the 30s) and were addressing real problems with their pay and conditions in the early 70s. By the 80s they were militant and political and, certainly, vanguardist.

[Capetan Mihali]

(Haven't really read the thread. But:)  Everything else aside, I don't really get celebrating the death of a political figure you loathe(d), especially a natural death at old age.  I might use it as a time to reflect on the evils that person did, to speak out about them and convince people how wrong they were and how similar things should be opposed in the present.  But "celebrating" seems kind of nonsensical.  Wouldn't you "celebrate" that person getting voted out of office or facing justice for their crimes, rather than their death? 

I guess I could see celebrating someone being assassinated while in power (obviously in a radically different context) if that were a political goal or if they were a bitter political enemy.

[Sheilbh]

Wouldn't you "celebrate" that person getting voted out of office or facing justice for their crimes, rather than their death? 

I think Viking's right. Thatcher and Blair never got voted out of office. They got ousted by their own party. There was no moment of catharsis for the many who hated them.

[mongers]

Scargill's election wasn't the turning point but it was the culmination of a period of radicalisation. The experience of success in 72 and 74, combined with deteriorating industrial relations and polarisation strengthened the hand of the militants. But for the majority of the 70s the battle was won by the old school unionists who were interested in winning advantages for the workers rather than a broader political battle - and Gormley's success on production pay undermined the NUM in 1984. The local onions were often as divided as the national leadership so some were dominated by militants while others weren't and, as in the 60s, you had local breakdowns which would cause miners to down tools. But generally the history is of a far more radicalised leadership than membership.

You're right the fight was going on for a while - I mean Gormley was a Special Branch informant precisely because he was worried about growing militancy, and Scargill - but I still think it's fair to say that the success of the radicals was in the late 70s. It ended with Scargill in charge (and he was a democratic centralist if ever there's one), but that is a shift. The miners past was that they hadn't been on strike since 1926 (I thought they had in the 30s) and were addressing real problems with their pay and conditions in the early 70s. By the 80s they were militant and political and, certainly, vanguardist.

Excellent work by Shelf, UK domestic politics in the period is a lot more complex that the bumper sticker sourced, seamless progress of market reforms, some here appear to have read. 

[garbon]

Scargill's election wasn't the turning point but it was the culmination of a period of radicalisation. The experience of success in 72 and 74, combined with deteriorating industrial relations and polarisation strengthened the hand of the militants. But for the majority of the 70s the battle was won by the old school unionists who were interested in winning advantages for the workers rather than a broader political battle - and Gormley's success on production pay undermined the NUM in 1984. The local onions were often as divided as the national leadership so some were dominated by militants while others weren't and, as in the 60s, you had local breakdowns which would cause miners to down tools. But generally the history is of a far more radicalised leadership than membership.

You're right the fight was going on for a while - I mean Gormley was a Special Branch informant precisely because he was worried about growing militancy, and Scargill - but I still think it's fair to say that the success of the radicals was in the late 70s. It ended with Scargill in charge (and he was a democratic centralist if ever there's one), but that is a shift. The miners past was that they hadn't been on strike since 1926 (I thought they had in the 30s) and were addressing real problems with their pay and conditions in the early 70s. By the 80s they were militant and political and, certainly, vanguardist.

Excellent work by Shelf, UK domestic politics in the period is a lot more complex that the bumper sticker sourced, seamless progress of market reforms, some here appear to have read. 

That might be a fair statement if anyone had advocated that position. I don't think there's been anyone that says reforms (of any type) progress along seamlessly.

[Sheilbh]

I've just noticed the local onions were divided