The Miners Strike

[jon1959]

Scargill, megalomaniac leader without a mandate, tried unseccussfully to bring down a democratically elected government. Franco, megalomaniac leader, by force of arms and the help of Hitler brought down a democratically elected government but eventually democracy won the day and even he had to accede to the will of the people. In its simplistic terms that was my point. There are other examples, of course, but the real point was that a nobody like Scargill was never going to summon enough support, even amongst his own members, to oust the Thatcher government by means other than through the ballot box.

OK. I don't agree with your description of Scargill, the NUM or the main drivers for the 1984-5 strike, although your view is shared hy a lot of people (from the editor of The Sun to Kinnock). Without the full financial and political support of the Labour Party, the TUC, and constituent TUC unions the strike was always likely to fail. It may have failed (later) even with that support.

But your analogy with the Spanish Civil War still makes no sense to me. Scargill and the NUM lost to a better prepared government backed by coal stockpiles and a militarised police operation. Franco and his fascists won against a democratically elected government and held power for 40 years. For them a triumph not a failure. The lesson from that seems to be less about megalomanic leaders and lack of mandate (or lack of a specific ballot to endorse conference policy) but that having an army, a willingness to commit atrocities, and international backers with a Condor Squadron leads to success?

[pomeroy]

OK. I don't agree with your description of Scargill, the NUM or the main drivers for the 1984-5 strike, although your view is shared hy a lot of people (from the editor of The Sun to Kinnock). Without the full financial and political support of the Labour Party, the TUC, and constituent TUC unions the strike was always likely to fail. It may have failed (later) even with that support.

But your analogy with the Spanish Civil War still makes no sense to me. Scargill and the NUM lost to a better prepared government backed by coal stockpiles and a militarised police operation. Franco and his fascists won against a democratically elected government and held power for 40 years. For them a triumph not a failure. The lesson from that seems to be less about megalomanic leaders and lack of mandate (or lack of a specific ballot to endorse conference policy) but that having an army, a willingness to commit atrocities, and international backers with a Condor Squadron leads to success?

Franco won a Pyrrhic victory and hardly a triumph. Spain under Franco was as divided as it was before. My point again is that sooner or later consensus will win through and the people will decide. Scargill never commanded support of his own troops and chose the most inauspicious time to start the battle. Moreover his generals were treated with derision by the general population. Remember Emlyn Williams speech peroration “ we will win or die in the attempt “. To the vast majority of the population and NUM members that was just a joke. Kinnock was right “ lions led by donkeys”.