IT began as a protest over pit closures, but developed into a bitter war that divided the nation, and one of the longest industrial disputes in history.
The miners' strike of the mid 1980s saw Arthur Scargill's mighty NUM pitted against Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her obvious determination to break what she saw as the stranglehold of the unions.
The year-long struggle split towns, communities and even individual households where it prompted violent disagreements: in the main because a national strike had been called without a national ballot.
Among the battlegrounds was Agecroft colliery in Salford, where hundreds of flying pickets from Yorkshire descended in a bid to prevent men from clocking on at the start of their shifts.
Today, the 25th anniversary of the start of the desperate conflict, there is virtually no sign that the once busy pit even existed.
It was the last in the Manchester area, but like many of its counterparts across the Lancashire coalfield, it has been obliterated by time.
Not even a single pithead wheel remains as a poignant tombstone to the former flourishing industry which gave work, dignity and hope to millions of working men.
Even the Lancashire Mining Museum, set up at Buile Hill Park in Salford as a memorial to King Coal, eventually followed the fate of the pits and was closed.
The heart of the strike was in Yorkshire, where the announced closure of the Cortonwood pit was the spark that exploded into an inferno of anger and violence.
Ironically, a book published today claims the National Coal Board never intended the pit to be included on its initial hit list.
When the strike call first went out in March 1984, the response in many areas - Lancashire included - was divided. At Agecroft, only 120 of the 900 men walked out, though almost all the collieries remained strike bound.
Jim Lord, NUM secretary at Agecroft at the time, told the Manchester Evening News he had wanted to strike, but abided by the result of the Lancashire ballot in which three to two voted against action. As a result, he suffered threats to his family and a sadistic beating by pro-strike miners.
He kept a daily diary of the anguish he witnessed over coming months as bitterness and anger turned to loss of hope and eventual despair. The idea had been to write a book, but ultimately he threw it in the bin.
The chilling statistics of the strike include 9,808 arrests, more than 10,000 charges, 551 complaints against the police by miners, 1,392 police officers injured, three murder charges, 682 miners sacked for violence and sabotage, while the cost of the police operation alone was estimated to be £200 million.
Miners returned to work on March 5, 1985, but it marked the death knell of a once proud industry.
In Lancashire, 6,000 men clocked back on 25 years ago today, but within eight years every pit was closed.
Tweet
Miners' strike - 25 years on
March 05, 2009
Police hold back pickets outside Agecroft Colliery
Police hold back pickets outside Agecroft Colliery
1/8
Play Slideshow
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
uss midway, Holstein Ostsee. (05/03/2009 at 07:55)
arthur dawkins (05/03/2009 at 08:54)
who was arested at Agecroft.. And spent time at Salford Jail..Was ashamed
of the Lancastrians who worked there...WHO kept on working..Thats why we
failed to THAT WOMEN and her cronies..Yorkshire Folk ?? SALT OF THE EARTH.
Thats when our once great country started to go to the dogs.arthur dawkins
born in Moss Side..Now THAILAND...
CorneredAllTheLuck, Tameside (05/03/2009 at 10:56)
Laura Norder, Didsbury (05/03/2009 at 11:19)
The miners - the backbone of the working class - supported me and my colleagues during the (call me Eddy) Shah and the Wapping dispute, and I'd like to think we reciprocated in some way when Thatcher's bootboys from the Met dished out summary 'justice' on behalf of the Right.
I just wish Thatcher was lucid enough to see what damage she did to huge areas of the country - not that she'd care.
Bean B4, manchester (05/03/2009 at 11:58)
What the left can't get over is their own silly mistake in underestimating the Lady.
The only villain of the piece was Comrade Arthur. The miners were to some degree lions led by donkeys. However, their main problem had been to hold the country to ransom on previous occasions.
God Bless Margaret Thatcher - the country will be forever in her debt.
As for you Laura - surprise surprise you were a union waller.
citycentre, manchester (05/03/2009 at 12:49)
PW, Manchester (05/03/2009 at 13:05)
Bean B4, manchester (05/03/2009 at 13:18)
I look back on the 1980s with a rosy glow. The miners tried to bankrupt thjis country through their own greed but paid the price when they came up against a bigger personality.
Black Flag (05/03/2009 at 13:30)
Which makes me wonder why you want to undo the major benefits by renationalising most of the industries which Thatcher opened up to competition.
Bean B4, manchester (05/03/2009 at 13:44)
Which makes me wonder why you want to undo the major benefits by renationalising most of the industries which Thatcher opened up to competition."
1) please tell me where I suggested "renationalising most of the industries which Thatcher opened up to competition"
2) Thatcher was always a believer in a mixed economy.
3) My comments referred specifically to Thatcher's dealings with the trades union czars.
You spend a lot of time commenting and trying undermine other people's views but rarely, if ever, state your own. Why way does it hang?
Black Flag (05/03/2009 at 13:58)
On more than one occasion you've talked about taking passenger transport into public ownership, amongst other things. Do you really need me to tell you what you believe in?
"2) Thatcher was always a believer in a mixed economy."
Thatcher was always a very vocal supporter of a privatised system. You seem to want to transform her into a figurehead for your own beliefs, rather than accept her for what she was.
"3) My comments referred specifically to Thatcher's dealings with the trades union czars."
You talked about Thatcherism in its pure form, which would encompass the whole range of policies.
"You spend a lot of time commenting and trying undermine other people's views but rarely, if ever, state your own."
That's the first time anybody has ever accused of not expressing my opinion on here! If you what to know my opinion on a subject, feel free to ask.
Bean B4, manchester (05/03/2009 at 14:28)
Having been involved with the study of law, I detect an air of the amatuer barrister about your response. Again, for simplicity, I will deal with your response on a point by point basis.
Bean B4 :"1) please tell me where I suggested "renationalising most of the industries which Thatcher opened up to competition"
BF's respopnse: "On more than one occasion you've talked about taking passenger transport into public ownership, amongst other things. Do you really need me to tell you what you believe in?"
Response: You simply did not answer the question. Passenger transport hardly constitutes a huge swathe of industry does it. I'm afraid you fell into your own vat of hyperbole and now can't seem to scramble out again. One of the problems of becoming intoxicated by your verbosity. The tag at the end was juvenile. I don't need you to tell me my beliefs - I have the Blessed Margaret for that.
"2) Thatcher was always a believer in a mixed economy."
BF's response: "Thatcher was always a very vocal supporter of a privatised system. You seem to want to transform her into a figurehead for your own beliefs, rather than accept her for what she was."
Response: Being a vocal supporter of privatisation was necessary to shift our economy away from the imbalance it previously had. It does not in any way make her any less a supporter of the mixed economy. Again, no real evidence just a dance of verbage brought on on by the delusion that you know everything. The jibe at the end again juvenile but ungrounded.
"3) My comments referred specifically to Thatcher's dealings with the trades union czars."
BF's response: "You talked about Thatcherism in its pure form, which would encompass the whole range of policies."
Response: Thatcherism in its pure form in relation to who controlled industry when she came to power. The article is specifically about the miner's strike. Again, your ability to hold an argument has let you down. Did you only just scrape the LLB but not stay on/be able to afford your
LPC. The mooting practice would have done you good.
"You spend a lot of time commenting and trying undermine other people's views but rarely, if ever, state your own."
BF's response: "That's the first time anybody has ever accused me (sic) of not expressing my opinion on here! If you what to know my opinion on a subject, feel free to ask."
Response: Who do you vote for?
Black Flag (05/03/2009 at 14:58)
Ok, if you really want to continue this ridiculous charade of me telling you what you believe in, here's one of your previous statements:
"Black Flag: Your opinion of course. Mine is that state control, by a proper government (as opposed to this one) of all public services is the ideal solution"
I think that ties in with my first comment.
"Being a vocal supporter of privatisation was necessary to shift our economy away from the imbalance it previously had. It does not in any way make her any less a supporter of the mixed economy."
No it doesn't, but nor does it alter the fact that she wasn't a supporter of a mixed economy.
"Again, no real evidence"
In a policy meeting, she slammed a copy of Hayek's book The Constitution of Liberty on a table and said "This is what we believe." The book talks about why government run services are a bad idea.
"Who do you vote for?"
It varies. None any of the parties reflect my beliefs closely enough to win any loyalty. At the next general election, I'll vote for whoever is most likely to ensure the Labour candidate isn't elected.
Bean B4, manchester (05/03/2009 at 16:03)
At least we agree on that.
dave pickup (05/03/2009 at 16:27)
citycentre, manchester (05/03/2009 at 19:41)
i feel the blame for the current situation can be spread around much more widely than that; however many of the factors in play in the current crises stem form tory policies in the early 80's.
for example the combination of discounted council house sales/ increasing rents for council tenants along with easing of lending restrictions, making mortgages much easier to obtain led to the house price bubbles, or at least their size and numer of people affected.
after allowing other lenders to enter the mortgage market and compete with building societies they then allowed (and even considered forcing) building societies to demutualise; companies such as abbey, halifax, northern rock and bradford and bingley took advantage, some familiar names there, no?
acts in 1988 and 1996 changed te way tenants and landlord interacted, making in much easier to remove tenants; enter the buy to let brigade
the link between house values and tax was broken when rates became poll charge; making house price booms more likely.
in the 1982 recession the way found to get people spending more was by changing the regualtions on hire purcahse and credit cards, allowing a massive increase in unsecured debt to finance consumerism, we now have somewhere over 1.5trilion in unsecured debt
the "big bang" act of 1986 changed the way the merchant banks operated; allowing bonus culture and the likes of lehman brothers and bear steans to make, and lose untold millions
the labour government of 1997 did just what the voters wanted, carried on where the tories left off but withoug major, archer, aitken and the rest of the then discredited tory bunch
Bean B4, manchester (06/03/2009 at 08:25)
I am in my early 50s, I have paid for my house, have a decent amount in the the bank, have always paid into a pension fund of some kind, pay my credit card off every month, have never ever paid bankl charges or had an overdraft and now only owe money (less that £5k) on my car.
I'm lucky - or am I? I consider that I have lived within my means, been prudent, not demanded things I can't afford - oh and worked hard.
The me me generation were given the opportunity to get themselves into the this mess - they didn't have to take it!
Black Flag (06/03/2009 at 09:59)
That's the key; all of the other aspects are broadly irrelevant in comparison. We've got Council Tax which is set too low, is never revalued and doesn't increase in line with house price increases. Until that changes, were going to remain trapped in a cycle of large house price bubbles and huge crashes.
nyb, ex manc (06/03/2009 at 14:04)
citycentre, manchester (06/03/2009 at 17:36)
Blackflag; possibly true, if the decoupling of rates from house values is the key issue what happened during the previous 18 year cycles, eg 1972?
nyb, ex manc, it hasnt gone ans is in the middle of a major expansion, its just open cast mining now, rather than deep; and since lots of coal is still burned in power stations this isnt likely to change anytime soon.
Black Flag (06/03/2009 at 19:01)
It seems that the 18 year land price cycle occurs independently of government intervention, hence why the crash has happened now. This is one of the issues that doesn't get raised in the credit crunch commentary. The media talks at length about bad debts and the American sub-prime market, but nobody seems to express an opinion on why everything collapsed when it did, rather than, say, five years ago.
The only thing the government can influence is how big the boom and therefore the following collapse is. The problem is that governments seem to have operated on the basis that house price growth is a good think and try to stoke it up at precisely the time it needs to be suppressed.
Governments need to start looking at the housing market for what it is - a pyramid scheme. It doesn't create wealth, it just moves money up the pyramid and eventually, the pyramid collapses when there aren't enough people able to pump money into it from the bottom.
PW, Manchester (06/03/2009 at 19:35)
Schwyz (07/03/2009 at 11:54)
PW, Manchester (07/03/2009 at 17:20)
citycentre, manchester (08/03/2009 at 19:17)