THE OUTCOME of the miners' strike has given rise to a rash analyses-from the government, the NCB and the press. ALAN JONES assesses capitalist reactions to the THE first and most striking thing about esery serious government and analysis of the end of the miners strike is how different it is from the rhetoric of "surrender' 'victory' dominated the popular press in the seek following the national delegate Nothing resembling euphora of "victory' -which have been expected-appeared in any serious capitals anarysis in me enure week following the strike.
Certainly, lan MacGregor indicated where he thought things should go in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph on 10 March. He stated: 'People are now decovering the price of insubordination and insurrection. And boy, are we going make it stick.
When informed that only mr mers were still on strike. MacGregor immented: "Oh, is that all. I'd hoped tered be more, then we could let them I c:: the payroll.' The result of that, however, was that Telegraph citorial the next Ma Gregor's remarks. It said MacGregor's was 'a phrase that is unlikely in be forgotten', and that: 'He has an press which might 10,000 POLITICS TODAY: AFTER THE MINERS' STRIKE #r Tebbit flell THE 1 TIMES Lombard fluid phase. by Peter riddel especiall 1983.' commentator, Peter Riddell, writing in the same issue arrived at an identical _conclusion. Under the title 'A warning for Mrs Thatcher', he began by arguing: 'British politics is now entering a more Among politicians of all parties there is a feeling of uncertainty which both contradicts any supposed mood of triumph the government might have with the end of the miners' strike raises questions about Mrs Thatcher's current approach.' Riddell argued: 'Mrs Thatcher may • have carried on being a crusader for too long. The public's mood may be shifting towaras consondanon, just as many o the government's policies have in pracHe warned: 'According to the latest Market and Opinion Research International survey in the Standard, the Tories have been losing support among the groups (skilled workers, trade unionists and home-owners that were the basis for their gains in 1979 and Lloyd and Riddell might be considered maverick elements from a ruling class point of view, because of their things Norman Tebbit scarcely falls into that category! But they were not isolated The Times carried an extremely interesting leader the day after the strike ended. It has recently carved itself a position as an uncompromised, 100 per cent Thatcherite, 100 per cent Reaganite paper. So its comments can be taken as quite free of left wing ideological bias.
Having, denounced 'the Scargill strategy of forging a private army of young shock troops hardened by their strike experience', and expressing the hope that 'the challenge and menace of scargillism has been crushed', The Times concluded its editorial with the view that: 'The moderate miners also deserve the moral support the government whose aim must now be to encourage moderate race umulsil. everywhere by doing business WILD moderate trade union leadership.' The paper returned to the same theme later in the week when it warned 'sympathy' redeveloping for the miners, and that Thatcher should make urgent musicilal broadcast to explain her goals.
The net analysis developing in sections of the capitalist class and media is clear. British capitalism understands that the political outcome of the miners' strike has not been as expected. The Thatcher government has been politically weakened, not strengthened, by the tremendous pounding it took from Dangerous forces have been released into the body politic from Scargill's "private army' - that is thousands NUM militants radicalised by the strike and their allies.
A joint interest, however is considered to exist with the TUC and Labour bureaucracy in attempting to contain and destroy these elements — furthermore it may be urgent and necessary to carry out policies to achieve this.
Certain adjustments of tactics may be necessary to gain this.
The whole thing could of course be put more simply. In its own way the capitalist press is registering the seismic shock of the strike. For the first time since the 1920s a truly class struggle force with a mass working class base has been injected into British politics. If that is not contained and destroyed then the economic gains made by Thatcher in the strike are of no significance in the long What good is a MacGregor rationalising a coal industry if political forces unassimilable by capitalism emerge?
Nigel Lawson may have said in Parliament that the strike was a good investment. But he was thinking about the economy. Just beginning to lurk somewhere in the bourgeoisie's judgement is the view that politically the miners' strike may have turned out to have been a very bad investment indeed
----- pull-quotes -----
THE MAKING OF A CHANCELLOR
A warning fot Mrs Thatcher