Discussion about this post

User's avatar
georgesdelatour's avatar

This article is a valuable corrective to people who think Reform can easily take over Labour’s old base. Consider me cautiously sceptical too. But I wonder if you overstate your case in the opposite direction. I notice that you never once mention Maurice Glasman’s concept of “Blue Labour”.

1) People can be all over the place politically. On the pages I visit - not a representative selection, I know - I find people who want a vigorous policy of immigration restriction, but they also want ultra-high taxes on the 1%, plus the total abolition of private schools. In the other direction, I’ve come across some super-woke pro-LGBT people who support capital punishment.

2) I think the internationalism of the working class can be overstated. International politics is complicated, and subject to strange twists and turns. Back in the 1930s, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact confused many of those who’d fought for the PCE and PSUC in the Spanish Civil War. Unherd magazine recently commissioned an opinion poll on foreign policy. It found that the majority of voters want something pretty close to isolationism. Not full-on Sakoku era Japan level isolationism, but something far closer to Swiss foreign policy than US foreign policy or even French foreign policy. Needless to say, this is just about the only foreign policy no party’s actually offering.

3) Keir Hardie, the first leader of the Labour Party, became embroiled in a row over Scottish businesses importing Lithuanian labour to work in the mines and steelworks of Lanarkshire and Ayrshire. Hardie struggled to balance his socialist internationalism with the complaints of Scottish workers. Eventually he settled on the position that immigration was okay in principle, provided it was from countries where average wage rates were similar to those in the UK. Sooner or later, someone’s going to rediscover Hardie’s argument, and apply it to 21st century immigration.

4) The British working class has a national story, a culture and a heritage, which many take pride in. It can include the Peasant’s Revolt, the Levellers and Diggers, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists, the Jarrow Marchers and, yes, the Miners’ Strike of 1984. The new academic left, captured by American narratives about intersectionality and decolonisation, is more destructive of this heritage than all the Conservative governments of the 20th and 21st centuries combined.

I remember when I was a teenager I read E.P. Thompson’s “The Making of the English Working Class”. Thompson was a dissident Marxist, who’d be considered outer left by most readers at the time. But today, a lot of the new woke left loathe Thompson’s book. They think it’s right wing. Why? Because it gives those vile gammons and chavs a culture and a heritage to take pride in, and we can’t have that. Okay, their trapper forefathers were sent down mines from age six, worked 12-hour shifts in total darkness and died in their 30s of black lung. But such people were still colonisers and oppressors. Or something.

Expand full comment
Alistair Penbroke's avatar

Touching, thank you for writing it.

My grandfather on my mother's side was a miner and probably spent a lot of time in clubs like the Pick. However he was (I'm told) never political, and quietly resented the hardships that industrial action inflicted on him and my mother's family.

It's easy to forget how radical that generation really was though. Much though I loathe wokeness, I'm pretty sure the miners would see them as centrist pussycats. To only give up on communism after the crackdown on Hungary is remarkable given that it was already known soon after the Red October that Lenin was using forced labor camps. It makes me wonder what media they consumed back then (probably the Guardian!), and to what extent their understanding of the USSR was accurate at all.

It's possible these areas will never solve their decline. They'll just wither and depopulate entirely, being left only as ruins. Such things have happened throughout history, and it's natural. Usually towns and villages emerge due to some inherent benefit of the local geography, like being on a river or at a crossroads. If a town only exists because of a mine then when the mine closes either due to mineral exhaustion or union sabotage, the town loses any purpose and will disappear too.

I guess the real question is what villages and towns are actually for, in a post-industrial society? Without the need for "natural industry" like canals, waterwheels, mines, trading posts etc, we are left with needing only agriculture and cities, with a smattering of countryside houses that exist primarily for people who want to be closer to nature.

Of course in reality we do need industry. The practice of mass outsourcing of industry to Asia feels inherently fragile, and like it could go horribly wrong any day now. I wonder if one day these pits will re-open, albeit far more mechanized. Perhaps though, the equipment would all be operated remotely from suburban settlements or city blocks.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts