Contributor Leaderboard

Ah, how soon they forget! No mention there that Scargill had already brought down the Heath government, had failed in his attempt to cause another national strike - this was his third attempt! Scargill wasn't at all interested in mine closures, else he'd have backed NACODS who insisted on doing underground maintenance to ensure that the pits weren't lost. They very sensibly argued that if they were prevented from doing their work then there was no point in protesting the closures, as the strike would bring about the very thing that Scargill was pretending to oppose. This didn't matter to Arthur; he wanted the next chapter of his Marxist revolution, at whatever cost! No one is trying to "demonise the miners" - demonisation is a socialist thing, a substitute for broadly based fact, and proper analysis. History is history, but it has to be set in historical context, and in the values of its day. That's a thing sadly lacking from socialist rhetoric. The game is to apply modern "enlightened" value to the past. If it were possible to wind the clock way back you'd find that there was fairly broad agreement on how things should and would change. There would be a few extremists on both sides, but the them-and-us thing has been manufactured to suit agendas. No one is disputing that the miners worked hard and that the conditions could and should have been much better, but by the standards of the day they were well paid. Hard economics caught up with that - nothing else! The wages, industral disruption, and social unrest caused by Scargill outran the use of the coal resource to the country. Something had to give! Many miners foresaw this, but local ones were misled and didn't. That's not their fault, but it is nervelessness lamentable. Fact is that we'd be in more or less the same state without the strike, as we now are after having suffered it. Others here have already pointed out the economic fundamentals. What is left is a badly misplaced sense of grievance. Passing that on to future generations helps no one. Yes, it's fine to recall the past in all its detail, but don't force future generations to re-live just one version of it! And... please don't bring up that lame Thatcher, Milk Snatcher nonsense. At every school I went to most of the milk went down the drain because kids wouldn't touch it! When originally introduced it was a vital measure to ensure children's health. And, surprise, free milk was introduced by Lord Butler in the Education Act of 1944 - a Tory minister in a Tory led government! Wartime rationing had long ended, but even in 1971 there was still some marginal benefit in giving it to under 7's, so she did! MT was a scientist, and carefully considered all the scientific and economic advice she was given. No blame on Harold though, he did the right thing to protect national resources. But, Labour conveniently fail to mention their major part in ending free milk, and hope their supporters are as dumb as they believe. They then magnify MT's part out of all proportion. This suits their agenda of demonising her to their supporters (who they actually despise), whist claiming to be her heir within their own elitist circles. It seems that to be a good Labour supporter you need a mighty short memory; no appreciation of simple economics, and absolutely no interest in historical fact (or even current affairs)! It also helps if you are young, impressionable, and clueless as to how the world actually works (a point not lost on Alex Salmond)!