What We Had, We Lost

This weekend's Observer carried a brief recollection and commentary by Will Hutton on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the miners' strike.

Loth as I am to agree with Hutton on many things, I found that reading the article brought back to me very vividly some of the feelings that were commonplace amongst us some of us on the left at the time who were actively involved, in a supporting role, and it's curious to contrast those feelings with Hutton's observations as an onlooker, as a non-participating journalist, particularly since he recounts how covering the strike affected his political thinking.

I suppose I should explain that I belonged then to a sceptical and disparate collection of anarchists whose basic attitude toward the situation was to be opposed to the strike but in favour of the strikers. What information we had back then indicated that this was the wrong strike at the wrong time and that the union was being provoked and goaded into striking at a time of the government's choosing (I still spit when anyone mentions the name Nicholas Ridley). It was a commonplace that defeat was likely for the miners and that they were led by a pig-headed, stubborn, ignorant, and tactically clueless leadership; that seemed to be true of a number of unions back then. Nevertheless, unlike Hutton, we knew that there was a moral obligation to support the strikers regardless of the union's blunders, and throughout the strike we manned the food stalls, made our donations, leafleted the shopping centres, turned on all our electrical appliances, attended and organized the rallies, all the usual stuff, and more beside.

Hutton writes, ambiguously, that “Without the evisceration of the Scargillite tendency, the Labour party would not have been able to shed itself of the old left project which, more than anything else, laid the ground for the two landslide victories of 1997 and 2001.” But the problem for us was never the old left project, it was the failure of the old left politicians to think outside the box, stop acting like dinosaurs, and think strategically instead of proprietorially or dictatorially. There was a level of machismo and slow wittedness (and a pride in both) that might be difficult to believe today, as though they thought brute force (in the form of 'solidarity,' but demanded, imposed, and controlled from on high) would guarantee victory.

Hutton: “Looking back after 20 years, it is clearer that the defeat of Scargill was vital for the economy, the labour market, the environment, the public interest and progressive politics.”

Vital? Overstating things, I think. In any case, "defeat of Scargill" is different from "defeat of the workers." From my perspective at the time, I only wished Scargill had been defeated on another battlefield, by his rank and file, before the strike ever took place. But arguably, for the labour movement, in the long term, it is better that Scargill lost; the fact that his identity was so wrapped up in the miners' cause has meant that he remains defeated - I'm annoyed only that the miners had to lose as well.