The Tories seem determined to make our ignoble history repeat itself

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Which side are you on? (Getty Images)

I am in my early sixties. The defining political event of my generation was the miners’ strike of 1984-5 – the longest, most bitter national strike in British working-class history. For over a year, the Thatcher government mobilised the full power of the state to break the strike by the National Union of Mineworkers, who were fighting to prevent colliery closures, the destruction of their industry and in defence of their communities. It was a dispute that demanded an answer to the question: which side are you on?

In the course of the strike, the police became an occupying army in mining villages. The government-approved brutality the police used against pickets – such as that used against pickets at the coking plant at Orgreave on 18 June 1984 – exposed the myth that the police were a neutral force in society forever.

More than 11,000 people were arrested during the strike; 8,000 were subsequently charged, and about 200 served prison sentences.

The mainstream media, from the BBC down to the gutter press vilified the miners, distorted their case and presented the strikers as the “enemy within”.

Faced with unprecedented repression by the state and denied solidarity action by the leadership of the labour movement, the miners were eventually beaten. The Tories were free to destroy the mining industry.

In 1983 Britain had 175 working pits. At the end of 2015 it had none.

Thirty-eight years after the miners’ strike the government announced plans to open a new coal mine in Cumbria.

The Tories are driven by short-termism, and lack any vision or plan beyond a profit margin.

So much for their “victory” over the miners.

Sasha Simic

London

A new way forward for Peru?

In regard to Liam James’s article on the removal of Peruvian president Pedro Castillo, James highlights how “nearly every former president in the last 40 years has been charged with corruption linked to multinational corporations”.

With a 40-year-long list of corrupt former presidents, I am excited to see how the (long overdue) first female president of Peru will mitigate the issues affecting the Andean nation’s “highly unstable political arena”, and hopefully not follow in her impeached predecessor’s footsteps.

Charlie Reid

Newcastle Upon Tyne

Play it again, sham

Regarding the article “‘Absolutely shocked’: Rishi Sunak turns on Tory peer Michelle Mone over Covid contract allegations”, I am reminded of those immortal lines from Casablanca:

Louis: “I’m shocked – shocked – to find that gambling is going on in here."

Croupier: “Your winnings, monsieur.”

Rachael Padman

Suffolk

Rethinking our borders

Simon Calder’s article on the potential airport Border Force strikes over the Christmas period can alert us to the intricacy of the modern international border system.

Borders no longer simply exist as a physical frontier between sovereign nations; instead, we must establish a more sophisticated conceptualisation of both the nature and location of borders and bordering practices.

As Etienne Balibar observed, “Borders are no longer at the borders”; they in fact permeate seemingly normal everyday practice in ways many are oblivious to. 

Michael Goodchild

Newcastle upon Tyne

We need to reform the House of Lords sooner rather than later

I agree with all that Andrew Woodcock said about changing the House of Lords.

A second chamber is necessary to audit untutored and overzealous creativity by the government. Some excellent people sit in the House of Lords; but the current system is unfit for purpose, and drastic change is essential. Reform has been attempted periodically, but the results have been inconclusive and not made improvement.

In 1885 Scottish orator Robert Graham asked:

“Do we confide our teeth to an hereditary dentist’s care? Why therefore, our laws to an hereditary legislator, merely because he has taken the trouble to be born, and is the presumed son of his father?”

Yet we do. Ninety-two hereditary peers still sit owing to a compromise forced by the Lords against full reform in 1999. The House has devolved into an ungainly partially party-political body of unlimited membership numbers and with minimal executive power, making its functions principally advisory. It is the only second chamber larger than the first – about eight hundred – while being one of the least effective. The US Senate has 100 members.

To be relevant, the House of Lords must be reformed by an elective process based on suitability for candidacy. Members should be the country’s most proven and capable people from every part of society and trade from academics and builders, through doctors and fishermen, to nurses, teachers and vets. Membership should be capped. Selection should be based on proven success, not political studies, and confirmed by local and national support.

There should be a limited service, during which time members must relinquish all other business activities. Second chamber selection for candidacy can be a rolling process. To begin a transition a trial period can start now with a test model from each of the four territories of the UK; but start now it must.

Matt Minshall

Brittany

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Russia’s current status is tragic, but may have been unavoidable

I am certain as one can be that Ukraine, the US, and the rest of Nato should have exercised more common sense over many years with regard to Russia. However, as the saying goes: commonsense butters no parsnips.

Too many obvious factors are being omitted: first, Russia has been paranoid as far back as the Napoleonic wars – probably even earlier – and no one can change that. Five Nato countries already share borders with Russia, and I have heard no complaints about this in all my years.

We are also talking about the country that supported Assad in slaughtering thousands of citizens in Syria. Poison gas and barrel bombs hardly endear one to the international community.

Finally, we are also talking about Vladimir Putin, who is alleged to have had his fingers in pies as diverse as Brexit, Trump and all manner of “mysterious” occurrences, in order to help weaken any possible threat to his ambitions.

No, there was precious little anyone could have done to avert this disaster.

An accurate analogy would be to think about the far right in the UK: the more you pander to them, the more they want!

And now the Russian president has achieved what? Larger Nato, pariah state status, the disaffection of innumerable Russian citizens, countless deaths of service personnel including undertrained demoralised conscripts, and possibly the shortening of his career (or even his life).

Robert Boston

Kent