Rupe 1

Courtney Rupe

ENGL 425-01

Professor Swiencicki

21 April 2016

Margaret Thatcher and the 1984-85 Miners’ Strike: An Ideologically Conflicting Rhetorical

Ecology

On October 12, 1984 at 2:54 A.M., a bomb exploded in the Brighton Grand Hotel where

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet were staying. The Irish Republican Army

(IRA), which said they “planted” the bomb (Thatcher “Speech” 213), was a terrorist group that

sought to rid Northern Ireland of British rule and reunite Ireland (Arthur). The IRA thought that

if it could murder Thatcher, it would have a better chance of seeing Ireland reunited (Bingham).

At the time of the Brighton bombing, Thatcher was facing one of the greatest crises of her

political career: the 1984-85 miners’ strike. The IRA was not connected to the miners’ strike.

However, it decided to take advantage of its exigence to state that it would no longer put up with

Thatcher and her British rule (Arthur).

Margaret Thatcher had already condemned the 1984-85 miners’ strike as being the

“enemy within” the British government and an enemy to democracy. However, in the original

draft of her “Speech to the Conservative Party Conference, Brighton, 12 October 1984,”

Thatcher planned to extend this title to the whole Labour Party (Travis). In the wake of the

Brighton bombing, however, Thatcher realized she had to revise her speech (Thatcher “Speech”

213). As Lord Kinnock, the leader of the Labour Party, intimated, if Thatcher had kept her

scathing comments against the Labour Party in her speech, her political career might have been

destroyed (Travis). Instead then, Thatcher decided to focus her speech solely on the miners’

Rupe 2

strike, foreign affairs and defense, and unemployment (Fraser 12). However, Thatcher’s

language still implicitly condemned the miners’ strike, its leader, Arthur Scargill, and ultimately

the Labour Party as being dangerous to democracy and free enterprise in Great Britain.

I will focus on how Thatcher’s rhetoric regarding the miners’ strike indirectly condemned

Arthur Scargill and the Labour Party and analyze Thatcher’s rhetorical choices. Thatcher

declared that the miners’ strike was an insurrection against democracy and an attempt to

dismantle the government and its laws (Thatcher “Speech” 224). By doing so, she intended to

strengthen her ethos as a female Prime Minister who would not let chaos, as inflicted upon

British society by the miners’ strike, destroy Britain. Thatcher constructed herself agentically, or

in a more determined way with traits ascribed to masculinity (Hall and Donaghue 633-34), in

order to aggressively assert her political stance. She did this to make sure her anti-Labour

ideologies became Britain’s reality. Thatcher used ethos and logos appeals that described the

economic damage keeping unproductive mine pits open was doing to the economy. She also

addressed how investments in new pits were making Britain’s economy stronger. In addition,

Thatcher employed pathos appeals related to the still-working miners and finished her speech

with ethos appeals to British nationalism and the government’s strength. Thatcher made these

arguments to solidify her authority as Great Britain’s female Prime Minister and to ensure that

her Conservative ideologies became Britain’s reality. Thatcher wanted this because she believed

that Conservatism was ultimately best for the British people as a whole.

The analytical method I am using in this essay is derived from Jenny Edbauer’s, Laurie

E. Gries’, and Sonja K. Foss’ methods of rhetorical analysis. Edbauer employs a method called

rhetorical ecological analysis. It diverges from Lloyd Bitzer’s in that it is an analysis that does

not focus on rhetorical situations as static circumstances that are caught within one particular

Rupe 3

historical moment. Instead, an ecological analysis studies the evolution of an argument’s rhetoric

and looks at the consequences of it and its relatively fixed rhetorical circumstances. This is done

instead of solely focusing on the argument and its unchanging rhetorical situation (Edbauer 9).

Gries’ method of rhetorical analysis goes a bit beyond Edbauer’s. Her new materialist method of

analysis studies an argument’s evolution throughout space and time, recognizing that arguments

are not static but are constantly shaping and being shaped by the various factors with which they

come into contact (Gries 7). As such, concepts such as a rhetoric’s assemblage, which is an

overlap of several ecological circumstances (61), an argument’s consequentiality, circulation,

distribution, and process of becoming are analyzed (86, 119-23). Foss’ method of rhetorical

analysis focuses on studying ideologies. These belief systems, she asserts, constitute the

motivations behind arguments. If these ideologies are hegemonic, or are the “dominant way[s] of

seeing the world,” they “represent … experience in ways that support the interests of those who

hold more power” in society (Foss 242). As such, Foss analyzes rhetoric to see how the

ideologies it relies on are used to “renew … reinforce … and defend” certain positions (243).

Throughout this essay, then, I will analyze Thatcher’s “Speech to the Conservative Party

Conference, Brighton, 12 October 1984” using these rhetorical methods. This will present a

diverse ecology of Thatcher’s speech and its consequences.

The 1984-85 miners’ strike occurred during Thatcher’s premiership. During World War

II and soon thereafter, Britain’s coal industry, which was nationalized in 1947, was relatively

stable. However, when the alternative fuel industry started to grow, it replaced the need for coal.

This resulted in mass layoffs, downsizing the coal industry from 700,000 employees in 1957 to

only 300,000 in 1970 (“The 1984”). In response, miners participated in mass strikes in 1972 and

1974, which successfully increased their pay. Additionally, the “international oil crisis” in 1973

Rupe 4

once again increased the demand for coal, making it a desirable unit for “electricity generation”

(“The 1984”).

However, in 1980, an economic recession hit Britain. This decreased the need for coal

and the pits that were not bringing in much money were disclosed. The Conservative government

had long wanted to privatize the energy sector and needed to reorganize the coal industry to do

so. As such, it planned to close many pits in 1981 (The 1984”). However, strikes rose up in

protest and the government had to halt its plans. It was not prepared to face the onset of strikes

until it acquired a new chairman of the National Coal Board (NCB), Ian MacGregor (The

1984”).

In March 1984, unauthorized strikes erupted in Scotland and Yorkshire when five pits

were closed without “proper review” (“The 1984”). The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM)

supported these strikes and called on other coal towns to join them. It believed that more strikes

had to happen to prevent the coal industry and towns from shutting down altogether. Many towns

did strike. However, the NUM’s call for a national ballot failed because the striking miners

feared that if the strike was voted against, they would have to accept the closure of their pits and

loss of their jobs. The striking miners also did not want to be responsible for causing any other

miner to lose his job (“The 1984”). The British government deployed police to face the picket

lines and a lot of violence resulted (“Thatcher”). The police were at war with the strikers until

March 1985, when the NUM voted to end the strike without any results (“The 1984”).

The miners’ strike started with the NUM’s president, Arthur Scargill. He did not believe

that any pits should be closed unless they were causing “[un]safety or geological exhaustion”

(Campbell 314). As such, Scargill disregarded the fact that “The economic case for shrinking the

coal industry was incontestable” (313). In fact, since the 1960s, both Conservative and Labour

Rupe 5

government leaders agreed that the coal industry needed to be downsized and had taken steps

toward so doing (313). In 1983-84 alone, the coal industry was facing a loss of £250 million due

to the overproduction of coal. As a result, the NCB decided it would close pits in “traditional

mining areas” and consolidate mining operations in “profitable modern pits” (314). This would

once again make the coal industry financially successful (314).

Nevertheless, Scargill, who was from one of Britain’s largest traditional coal-mining

areas, campaigned against this government movement. He stood on the principle that no working

man should have to lose his job (Campbell 314). However, beneath his pretense of goodwill

toward the working class, Scargill was plotting to lead a miners’ strike to destroy Thatcher’s

government (312). Previously, Scargill had led a successful “mass picketing of the Saltley Gate

coke works” in the 1970s, which has been attributed as an event that “forced” the previous Prime

Minister, Heath, “to cave in to the miners in 1972” (314). Partially as a result of this strike, the

Conservative Heath government collapsed. In the same way, then, Scargill was intent upon

tarnishing Thatcher’s government (312). He “openly boasted of leading a socialist – more

accurately a syndicalist – revolution to overthrow capitalism” (314), which was Thatcher’s

economic platform. Furthermore, when Thatcher was reelected to the premiership, Scargill stated

that “extra-parliamentary action was ‘the only course open to the working class and the labour

movement’” (qtd. in Campbell 314). As a result, Scargill began to lead a miners’ strike that was,

in fact, illegal (314).

In order to try to make his political agenda a reality, Scargill held three different ballots

in the NUM calling for a strike in 1982-83. However, these resulted in a substantial majority

voting against a strike. Due to the success of the strikes Scargill led in the 1970s, workers whose

jobs were not threatened did not want to go on strike; they already had everything they needed.

Rupe 6

Furthermore, the NCB was giving large redundancy payments to those miners who were going to

lose their jobs due to pit closures. As such, there was no real reason for the workers to go on

strike to gain any benefits. All of these factors added up to create a situation in which Scargill

could not get the strike he wanted (Campbell 314). As a result, he circumscribed the NUM’s

constitution by not holding a national ballot and started a national strike all on his own. Scargill

did so by inciting “regional strikes” in areas that particularly relied on the coal industry for their

way of life (315). His vice president Mick McGahey believed that once these areas went on

strike, it would create a “‘domino effect’” in the other regions (qtd. in Campbell 315). However,

only three mining regions, which did not hold ballots, were completely behind the strike. As a

result, Scargill managed to divide the union, which before had been a strong, likeminded

organization. His “refus[al] to hold a ballot … not only set area against area but miner against

miner within each area, pit and village” (qtd. in Campbell 315). In this way, even though Scargill

claimed to be representing those who would lose their jobs if pits were to close, he was actually

using the event as a political springboard to destroy Thatcher’s government.

Margaret Thatcher was the head of the Conservative Party, which valued deregulated

industry, free market economic operations, and limited government intervention. It also wanted

to privatize the coal industry and did not support the strikes. As a Conservative, Thatcher

believed that keeping less productive pits open was detrimental to Britain’s economy. However,

she faced the opposition of the NUM and the Labour Party. Arthur Scargill held Marxist beliefs

and had begun the strike “almost singlehandedly” by not calling for a national ballot (Revzin).

He declared that Thatcher was “‘out to destroy the working class of [Britain]’” and did not

believe that pits should be closed when they were unproductive (qtd. in Revzin). However, even

though Thatcher was partially unsupportive of the coal industry because she believed that “the

Rupe 7

future … lay with clean, modern nuclear energy” (qtd. in Campbell 316), she was also forced to

say positive things about consolidating coal production in “profitable pits.” Thatcher had to do

this to refute Scargill’s accusations that her government was intent upon destroying the coal

industry (316). Furthermore, Thatcher faced the fact that the Labour Party worked with Scargill

to continue the strike (Revzin). Thus, Thatcher believed that the Labour Party was conspiring

with the strikers to bring more liberal policies into the government. This is one of the many

ecological situations Thatcher faced in which she pitched ideological battles as a type of “‘us’

against ‘them’” war (qtd. in Campbell 311). As a result, in her original speech, Thatcher was

going to condemn the Labour Party’s leaders as the root problem against “‘parliamentary

democracy and the rule of law,’” since they did not speak against “‘picket-line violence’” (qtd. in

Travis). However, after the Brighton bombing, Thatcher changed her speech in order to salvage

her political reputation.

Thatcher began by addressing the Brighton bombing: “The bomb attack on the Grand

Hotel early this morning was first and foremost an inhuman, undiscriminating attempt to

massacre innocent unsuspecting men and women staying in Brighton for our Conservative

Conference.” The Conservative Party Conference was Britain’s version of America’s Republican

or Democratic National Convention. Thatcher then continued, “Our first thoughts must at once

be for those who died and for those who are now in hospital recovering from their injuries”

(Thatcher “Speech” 213). This hot language (“inhuman,” “undiscriminating,” “massacre”)

established Thatcher’s pathos for British citizens subjected to the bombing. In turn, this boosted

her ethos as a caring politician. Here, Thatcher combined agentic (masculine/aggressive)

qualities with communal (feminine/nurturing) undertones. She did this to structure herself as

what political communication researchers call an androgynous female politician. Androgyny is a

Rupe 8

quality of someone who exhibits both masculine and feminine traits in a persuasive manner (Hall

and Donaghue 634). However, Thatcher quickly turned her attention to what she thought the

bombing really symbolized: “… the bomb clearly signified … an attempt not only to disrupt and

terminate our Conference; it was an attempt to cripple Her Majesty’s democratically elected

Government” (Thatcher “Speech” 213). Thus, Thatcher thought that the IRA, which planted the

bomb, wanted to disrupt the Conservative Party’s agenda and bring down Britain’s government.

By referring to the Conservative Conference as “our conference” and referencing “Her Majesty’s

democratically elected Government,” Thatcher elicited feelings of nationalism from her

audience. Additionally, as seen in her strong language here as well as further in her speech,

Thatcher tactfully refuted all accusations that might have arisen against her due to her gender and

strengthened her ethos as a governing woman fit to rule: “the fact that we are gathered here now

—shocked, but composed and determined—is a sign not only that this attack has failed, but that

all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail” (Thatcher “Speech” 213).

Thatcher next addressed the miners’ strike by stating that in Conference debates “We

have heard … some of the aspects that have made this debate so repugnant to so many people”

(Thatcher “Speech” 223). She called out the fact that the debate was “repugnant” because it was

an ideological battle between Conservative and Labour views. She then continued, “We were

reminded by a colliery manager that the NUM always used to accept that a pit should close when

the losses were too great to keep it open, and that the miners set great store by investment in new

pits and new seams” (Thatcher “Speech” 223). Thatcher first used the voice of a colliery

manager, one who operates pits (Church and Outram 273-74), to boost her credibility. As such,

Thatcher portrayed herself as someone who listened to voices from both sides of the miners’

argument. This strengthened her ethos as a caring politician with integrity. Thatcher also used the

Rupe 9

colliery manager’s statement to question the credibility of the NUM: they had never fought

against the Conservative commonplace that the economy does better when unproductive pits are

closed. In addition, Thatcher stated that the NUM had always agreed that once unproductive pits

are closed, miners do better economically by investing “in new pits and new seams.” By doing

so, Thatcher strengthened her ethos as a female politician who knew how the best economy

operated. She also established her pathos for the miners and rebutted any accusations that she did

not care about their economic welfare. Her next statement reveals this: “under this Government

… new investment is happening in abundance. … £2 million in capital investment in the mines

for every day this Government has been in power” (Thatcher “Speech” 223). Thatcher thereby

strengthened the ethos of her government: it knew what was best for the British economy and the

miners affected by it.

Thatcher then ignited the pathos of the audience for the miners who were still working.

She began, “We heard moving accounts from two working miners about just what they have to

face as they try to make their way to work. The sheer bravery of those men and thousands like

them who kept the mining industry alive is beyond praise” (Thatcher “Speech” 223). There was a

lot of violence between the picketers and the police during the strike and those who crossed the

picket lines to work faced a large brunt of it (“Thatcher”). Thatcher mentioned the two working

miners’ stories to call the audience to sympathize with all working miners. She also glorified

them to reveal that it was because of working miners that the mining industry had not shut down.

This was a clever way for Thatcher to point out an error in Scargill’s logic. The industry he had

so desperately wanted to save by leading a strike had survived only because some miners had

refused to strike. In this way, Thatcher divided and demonized the conflict between the striking

miners partnered with Scargill and her Conservative government. Thatcher continued to praise

Rupe 10

the miners who had continued working: “‘Scabs’, their former workmates call them. Scabs?

They are lions!” (Thatcher “Speech” 223). In calling out the working miners’ bravery as being

that of “lions,” Thatcher continued to pull on the audience’s pathos toward them. Everyone could

relate to the working miners’ situation: they were doing something that they felt was right, but

for which they were criticized. Since the audience was able to empathize, they were more willing

to listen to Thatcher’s arguments. They were also persuaded to feel as Thatcher did: it is “a

tragedy … when striking miners attack their workmates” (Thatcher “Speech” 223).

Next, Thatcher utilized her most logos-based ethical appeal on the audience. She brought

to light the fact that Scargill was utilizing a faulty method to preserve the coal industry: “the

working miner is saving both their[s and the striking miners’] futures, because it is the working

miners … who have kept faith with those who buy our coal” (Thatcher “Speech” 223). Here,

Thatcher used logos to further establish her ethos as a fit politician. She revealed the grave

economic reality: if the working miners had gone on strike, then the striking miners would have

lost their jobs and the pay for which they were fighting. This in turn would have led to the

downfall of the coal industry which Scargill wanted to continue. Additionally, Thatcher

polarized the situation by contrasting the working miners from the strikers. The working miners

had kept the coal industry alive. However, if all the miners had gone on strike, they would have

destroyed the coal industry and pushed away its potential investors. By creating this binary

between the striking and working miners, Thatcher established her political identity as a Prime

Minister who would not let chaos destroy Britain.

Thatcher further asserted the main idea of her argument. She accused the miners

participating in the strike as advocates of anarchy (Thatcher “Speech” 225). She made this

declaration because Scargill created the strike by circumventing the customary national ballot

Rupe 11

process (Revzin). As such, the strike was technically illegal and an affront to the British

government. Thatcher stated that Britain is “the home of democracy. But the sanction for change

is in the ballot box. It seems that there are some who are out to destroy any properly elected

Government” (Thatcher “Speech” 225). Here, Thatcher put the blame on the striking miners,

partnered with Arthur Scargill, for upsetting the British government and its operations. In this

way, Thatcher further called miners’ ethos into question. She then appealed to neoliberalism by

implicitly stating that traditional Parliamentary government is the best for everyone (Hall and

O’Shea 9): “what is the law [the miners] seek to defy? It is the common law, created by fearless

judges and passed down across the centuries. It is legislation scrutinized and enacted by the

Parliament of a free people” (Thatcher “Speech” 225). Thatcher referred to British Parliamentary

law as “common law” that had been “passed down across the centuries” and voted for by “a free

people” in order to emphasize a Conservative warrant. This warrant stated that the British

Parliamentary law was “common” and had existed for a long time because everyone believed

that it was the best kind of law. Thatcher also mentioned the common law and Parliament to

appeal to British history, which was a way of inciting nationalism and causing the British people

to remember their government’s roots. If Thatcher could successfully cause her audience to be

captivated by how British government began, then they would want to continue Britain’s legacy.

Thatcher thereby created an invented ethos for herself as a champion for human rights, which the

striking miners and Scargill were seeking to destroy. In this way, Thatcher flipped the conflict on

its head. Additionally, any of the audience’s ideological constraints were broken down because,

after all, they were all British nationalists and did not want anything to get in the way of their

legal system. Thatcher further played to nationalism by emphasizing British tradition and

Rupe 12

international respect for it: “This is the way our law was fashioned, and that is why British

justice is renowned across the world” (Thatcher “Speech” 225).

Thatcher consequently decided to quote Theodore Roosevelt, one of the most respected

American presidents in history:

No government owns the law. It is the law of the land, the heritage of the people.

No man is above the law and no man is below it. Nor do we ask any man’s

permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as

a right, not as a favor (qtd. in Thatcher “Speech” 225).

Thatcher used this quote from Roosevelt to call out the miners’ strike as an illegal operation that

was seeking to rebel against the law. This was a clever move, as Thatcher was able to use a

liberal president’s rhetoric to shame the striking miners and Scargill and appeal not only to

Conservatives, but also to members of the Labour Party. If no man is above or below the law, he

absolutely has to obey it and there are no excuses. Additionally, a warrant of this quote is that the

people created the law for their own protection. This is why it was the “law of the land,” as well

as the people’s “heritage” and their “right” to obey it. By so doing, Thatcher solidified the

miners’ strike as a battle against the government and the purity for which it stood.

Thatcher finished her speech by stressing her ultimate motive. She wanted to run a

government that looked out for the interests of everybody: “We are fighting … for the weak as

well as for the strong. We are fighting for great and good causes. We are fighting to defend them

against the power and might of those who rise up to challenge them” (Thatcher “Speech” 226).

Here, Thatcher used a neoliberal commonplace that asserted that everyone agreed with citizens’

equality. In this way, Thatcher promoted the view that the Government knew what was best for

the people (Hall and O’Shea 8). Thatcher had constructed the miners’ strike as a battle of the

Rupe 13

common people against the strikers and Scargill. If the miners’ strike did not end, then British

law as the people have known it may very well end. As a result, Thatcher called her audience to

rally around her and not support the strike. After all, she had portrayed the striking miners and

Scargill as the enemies of the common people (Campbell 311), so they would want to be on her

side.

Audience reception to Margaret Thatcher after she delivered her speech was diverse and

widespread. Nonetheless, it is difficult to find cultural reaction directly related to Thatcher’s

speech or to find miners’ reactions to Thatcher’s Conservative policies. All of this ecology’s

aftermath pertains to the various assemblages that intra-acted with the speech. One of these

assemblages is Thatcher’s bravery in the face of delivering her speech after the Brighton

bombing. Thatcher’s private secretary John Coles applauded this, saying, ‘‘We shall remember

—not the bomb or the ruined building—but your courage, calm and nobility in the aftermath. I

can imagine how much shock and sorrow you had to overcome to show those qualities so

splendidly. You turned evil into inspiration’” (qtd. in Lyons). Many people echoed this

sentiment. Thatcher’s “popularity soared” due to the fact that she still decided to speak even after

the Brighton bombing (Jones). She was also painted as incredibly “defiant” (Bingham; Jones)

and even more agentic than she usually was. President Ronald Reagan, a close friend and ally of

Thatcher’s, also called Thatcher to express his condolences:

I sent a message about that terrible bomb attack but I just wanted to call you

myself to also tell you how happy and grateful we are that you were not

personally injured and our wishes and prayers go for those who were injured. And

I think this just demonstrates, once again, that we must do all we can to stop

Rupe 14

terrorism. They’ll always have some success, but we can make their job a little

tougher” (Reagan and Thatcher).

Even though Thatcher was brave by still choosing to speak after the IRA’s assassination

attempt, she also received harsh criticism. Labour Party member John O’Farrell, who has been

involved in politics since he was seventeen years old (“John”), hated Thatcher so much that in

2013 he said, “‘when the Brighton bomb went off,  I felt a surge of excitement at the nearness of

[Thatcher’s] demise and yet disappointment that such a chance had been missed’” (qtd. in

Walters). However, “jibphillips,” who commented on this article from Manila, Philippines,

asserted that since O’Farrell is also a “comic writer,” he was just “us[ing] exaggeration and

shock for effect” in his statement. However, O’Farrell may have taken his supposed comedy too

far when he asserted, “‘I would invent all sorts of elaborate scenarios whereby [Thatcher] would

cease to be Prime Minister of Britain. Some … involved me popping up with a machine-gun at

the Conservative Party Conference’” (qtd. in Walters). Although O’Farrell’s hatred was not

directly fueled by Thatcher’s speech after the bombing, it is apparent by his comments that

Thatcher was still abhorred by many, even though she courageously stood against terrorism by

still speaking after the Brighton bombing.

Another assemblage in this ecology is the press that reported on Thatcher’s death and her

legacy of how she handled the miners’ strike. This eclipsed the legacy of Thatcher’s actual

speech. A miner who participated in the entire yearlong duration of the strike, Darren Vaines,

said upon Thatcher’s death that “‘It [was] a very strange emotional feeling because her death

[brought] back a lot of memories and open[ed] up a wound that [had] never really healed. The

cut went so deep, people have never been able to forget about it. It’s something they can never

get out of their system.’” Vaines also accused Thatcher of “‘us[ing] miners as a political

Rupe 15

springboard. She knew what she was doing and it was a horrible way of going about it’” (qtd. in

Coldrick). In other words, Vaines believed that Thatcher thought the miners’ strike was a

kairotic circumstance from which she could push her Conservative ideologies into the British

government and thereby solidify her rule. The way Thatcher would do this was by privatizing the

coal industry, which would eliminate some jobs. Additionally, Chris Kitchen, the “Yorkshire-

based NUM general secretary,” emphasized that one “‘only need[s] to go round the mining

community and see the devastation that [Thatcher] left behind in her wake and also the

nationalised industry that she ran down for the sake of short-term profit. … with the devastation

she brought to the country she doesn’t deserve any remorse or respect from me’” (qtd. in

Coldrick). The “devastation” to which Kitchen referred was the many mine closures that took

place during Thatcher’s administration. These left the coal industry less profitable than it was

before, which was not what Thatcher intended (Coldrick). She believed that closing less-

profitable pits and consolidating and investing in new ones would make the coal industry

profitable again (Thatcher “Speech” 223). Unfortunately, it did not. However, Moore states that

Thatcher’s defeat of the miners’ strike resulted in “economic benefits [that] were huge,” so it

seems that the economic implications of Thatcher’s policies are supported primarily along party

lines.

In addition, there was much more cultural reaction to the speech Thatcher had originally

intended to deliver than the one she actually did. This constitutes a large ecological assemblage.

When notes from Thatcher’s original speech were found that condemned not only the miners’

strike but the Labour Party as the “enemy within,” many were outraged. Former Labour Party

leader Lord Neil Kinnock said that Thatcher’s notes were “‘further proof, if any more be needed,

of the degree to which she was determined to politicise the dispute … Week after week she used

Rupe 16

to tell me that the dispute was between the miners and the National Coal Board, nothing to do

with the government. So she was a serial misleader’” (qtd. in Travis). Lord Kinnock believed

that Thatcher used the miners’ strike to promote her bigger agenda of making the government

completely Conservative. Although she wanted to do this, Thatcher’s motivation stemmed from

her belief that Conservatism was the best political policy for everyone. Her speech showed that

Thatcher was not acting as a “serial misleader.” However, Lord Kinnock further criticized

Thatcher’s ethos by claiming that “‘All subsequent cabinet paper disclosures have shown she

was desperate to make political capital out of the dispute, to the extent of firing off such absurd

allegations’” (qtd. in Travis).

Conversely, Mick Dickinson, a former employee at the Fryston Colliery, appeared to

praise Thatcher for her economic policies: “‘She will go down in history as one of the greatest

post-war prime ministers thanks to the privatisation she was driving the country into, and some

of the nationalized industries did need to change.’” However, Dickinson then said that Thatcher

“‘took the miners’ strike too personally and that it became a personal crusade. We have hate and

resentment for what she did to the industry’” (qtd. in Coldrick). In other words, Dickinson and

others like him loathed the results of Thatcher’s economic policies towards the mining industry

and thought that Thatcher was using these policies to solidify her own political power. Lord

Norman Tebbit, who was with Thatcher when the Brighton bomb exploded and who was injured

by it (Jones), stated that if he had known about Thatcher’s original draft of her speech, he would

have “advised her against” delivering it. However, he announced what its ecology has ultimately

made of Thatcher’s political reputation: “In the event, the attack by the other ‘enemy within’ [the

never-delivered speech] changed everything. The wave of horror from the public and Labour

Rupe 17

leaders alike changed everything. It was only a pity that the text of the speech she never made

survived” (Tebbit).

Another assemblage that comes into play in this ecology is a gendered one. According to

Joshua Kennon, misogyny was a large factor that affected British perception of Thatcher. As he

revealed, the circumstances of the miners’ strike involved an intelligent, educated woman

fighting against lower-class men who, in a patriarchal system, were trying to earn a living. This

was a large reason why Thatcher earned such hatred. In addition, female power was not

something generally seen in the world at this time, not even in the United States (Kennon).

Nevertheless, it is interesting to analyze how Thatcher chose to portray herself as a female

politician. She asserted that she “‘owe[d] nothing to women’s [liberation]’” and she “never, in

theory, rejected the idea that a woman’s place [was] in the home” (qtd. in Moore). In fact,

Thatcher seemed to pride herself on being a housewife. When she first rose to power in 1979,

Thatcher argued that “‘any woman who underst[ood] the problems of running a home [would] be

nearer to understanding the problems of running [a] country’” (qtd. in Moore). Thatcher

portrayed herself as a female politician who respected and rooted herself in the communal world,

but who aggressively pursued agentic rhetoric to make sure her Conservative beliefs became

Britain’s reality. This is an interesting example of a dynamic blend between agentic and

communal traits, which resulted in Thatcher being an androgynous politician (Hall and

Donaghue 635).

The ecology created around Margaret Thatcher’s “Speech to the Conservative Party

Conference, Brighton, 12 October 1984” comprises many complicated, interwoven assemblages

and is ideologically intense. Thatcher’s fellow Conservatives and supporting citizens believed

that her stance against the miners’ strike was the right one. As Kennon stated,

Rupe 18

If you [were] a member of the middle class or upper class [many of whom were

Conservatives], with a good education, engaged in some sort of knowledge work

where you, yourself, are the asset, and responsible, Margaret Thatcher’s policies

benefited you enormously. … your employment options [were] greater [and] your

opportunity to make a lot of money expanded.

However, many others, like the mining communities and their families, believed that Thatcher

was taking away from them their only chance at making a living. In some cases, she

unfortunately did:

“If, on the other hand, you [were] a lower class, undereducated manual worker

relying on government subsidies, Thatcher’s policies were

economically devastating in a way that is hard to overstate. You lost your home,

your job, and your self-respect. You now exist[ed] on an endless stream of

welfare checks in one of countless villages that [were] shells of what they once

were” (Kennon).

The 1984-85 miners’ strike comprised a very sad set of circumstances and was an extremely

tough rhetorical situation in which to argue. However, Thatcher stood by her political beliefs no

matter what and, even though the results of some of her policies were not what she intended and

she expressed them with much agency, Thatcher gracefully did so in one of the worst moments

in British history. Thus, I agree with Thatcher’s argument, respect her, and hope that other

leaders like her—who stick to their beliefs no matter what faces them—will assert themselves in

a similar way and rise to prominence.

Ultimately, this ecology teaches us that language spoken within ideologically tense

situations, even if it is spoken out of the integrity of the speaker’s heart, cannot change a

Rupe 19

polarizing situation. The language may accomplish what the speaker wants it to, but it will not

win everyone over to his/her side of the argument. There will always be people who agree with

the speaker’s argument and those who disagree with it. As such, analyzing Margaret Thatcher’s

speech against the 1984-85 miners’ strike can teach us this valuable lesson.

Rupe 20

Works Cited

Arthur, Paul. “Irish Republican Army (IRA): Irish Military Organization.” Encyclopedia

Britannica. 13 Feb. 2014. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Bingham, John. “Margaret Thatcher: Seconds from Death at the Hands of an IRA Bomber.”

The Telegraph. 08 Apr. 2013. Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Campbell, John. The Iron Lady: Margaret Thatcher, from Grocer’s Daughter to Prime Minister.

Penguin: New York, 2009. Print.

Church, Roy, and Dr. Quentin Outram. Strikes and Solidarity: Coalfield Conflict in Britain,

1889-1966. Cambridge U.P., 09 May 2002. Web. Google Books. 22 Feb. 2016.

Coldrick, Martin. “Margaret Thatcher and the Pit Strike in Yorkshire.” BBC News. 08 Apr.

2013. BBC, 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Edbauer, Jenny. “Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to

Rhetorical Ecologies.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.4 (2005): 5-24. Print. 14 Jan. 2016.

Foss, Sonja K. “Ideological Criticism.” Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 4th ed.

Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 08 Aug. 2008. 239-248. Print.

Fraser, John. “Icily Composed Thatcher Condemns Bomb Attack.” The Globe and Mail

[Toronto, ONT] 12 Oct. 1984: 12. ProQuest Central. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

Gries, Laurie E. Still Life with Rhetoric: A New Materialist Approach for Visual Rhetorics.

Logan: Utah State U.P., 2015. Print.

Hall, Lauren J., and Ngaire Donaghue. “‘Nice Girls don’t Carry Knives’: Constructions of

Ambition in Media Coverage of Australia’s First Female Prime Minister.” The British

Rupe 21

Psychological Society 52(2013): 631-647. Print. 19 Feb. 2016.

Hall, Stuart, and Alan O’Shea. “Common-sense Neoliberalism.” Soundings: A Journal of

Politics and Culture. Winter 55 (2013): 8-24. Project Muse. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

Jibphillips. DailyMail.com. Associated Newspapers Ltd, 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.

“John O’Farrell – Labour Party.” Southern Daily Echo. 2015. IPSO Regulated, 24 Feb. 2013.

Web. 25 Feb. 2016.

Jones, Ros Wynne. “Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013: War with the IRA and Surviving the

Brighton Bombing.” Mirror: Website of the Year. 10 Apr. 2013. Mirror Online. Web. 23

Feb. 2016.

Kennon, Joshua. “Margaret Thatcher and the British Coal Miners’ Strike.” Joshua Kennon:

Thoughts on Business, Politics & Life from a Private Investor. 08 Apr. 2013. Kennon & Green

Press, LLC. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.

Lyons, James. “Margaret Thatcher Ripped up Miners’ Strike Conference Speech after IRA

Brighton Bombing.” Mirror: Website of the Year. 03 Oct. 2014. Mirror Online. Web. 23

Feb. 2016.

Moore, Charles. “The Invincible Mrs. Thatcher.” Vanity Fair 53.12 (Dec. 2011): 236. ProQuest

Central. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.

“No Ordinary Politician; Margaret Thatcher.” The Economist, 13 Apr. 2013: 26-28.

ProQuest Central. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Reagan, Ronald, and Margaret Thatcher. Reagan Phone Call to MT (Sympathy and Support).

Rec. 12 Oct. 1984. Margaret Thatcher Foundation, 2014. Audio Recording.

Revzin, Philip. “U.K. Coal Miners Losing Support for Strike.” Wall Street Journal [New

York] 16 Nov. 1984: 1. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Wall Street Journal.

Rupe 22

Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

Tebbit, Norman. “Margaret Thatcher’s Struggle against the Strikes, the ‘Enemy within’, was a

Fight for Democracy.” The Telegraph. 05 Oct. 2014. Telegraph Media Group Limited,

2016. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

Thatcher, Margaret. “Speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 12 October 1984.” The

Collected Speeches of Margaret Thatcher. Ed. Robin Harris. Harpersmith, London:

HarperCollins, 1997. Print.

“Thatcher May Act Miners Act 40 Officers in U.K. Clash.” The Globe and Mail [Toronto,

ONT] 13 Nov. 1984: 1. ProQuest Central. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

“The 1984-85 Miners’ Strike.” The Union Makes Us Strong: TUC History Online. London

Metropolitan University. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.

Travis, Alan. “Thatcher was to Call Labour and Miners ‘Enemy within’ in Abandoned

Speech.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 02 Oct. 2014. Web. 18 Feb.

2016.

Walters, Simon. “Fury over ‘Moral Reprobate’ Labour Candidate Who Wrote of Disappointment

That Mrs. Thatcher Didn’t Die in the Brighton Bombing.” DailyMail.com. Associated

Newspapers Ltd, 16 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.