#Thatcherism

[neil-neil-orange-peel]

TYO Essay

A while back, I mentioned I wrote an essay for my previous uni course where I used TYO as a source to look at the early 1980s. @a-a-a-anon expressed an interest in reading it, so here ya go! The quality of it is seriously iffy (I was 18/19 when I wrote it and had no idea how to actually write or reference academic essays yet, and just the quality of the writing makes me cringe a bit). There was also more I wanted to say but couldn't due to the word limit (don't remember what these other things were now). Despite all that, the lecturer liked it, and it was cool I got to write about TYO for uni.

The Young Ones as a Cultural Source for Early 1980s Britain

Although today in Britain the future often feels uncertain – the global pandemic notwithstanding, Brexit is still looming on the horizon – the Britons of 40 years ago doubtlessly felt similarly, albeit for different reasons. In the early 1980s, the threat of nuclear war was palpable, as the existence of Protect and Survive[1] attests to. Nuclear war paranoia influenced British culture in the 1980s, with bleak examples such as the BBC film Threads (1984) and Raymond Briggs’ When the Wind Blows (1986) still remembered keenly today. Both fictionalisations of nuclear war featured material from Protect and Survive and highlighted the message of contemporary nuclear disarmament protestors: no one can win a nuclear war. Of the less apocalyptic issues, unemployment hit 3 million (about 11.7%[2]) in 1983 – for comparison, in 2019 it was estimated to be at 1.281 million (about 3.6%[3]). The Thatcher administrations’ efforts to break from the post-war consensus and embrace neo-liberalism created divisions in society. Yet, amidst threats of nuclear war, mass unemployment, the decline of British industry and the growth of individualism, a cultural revolution in comedy dubbed “alternative comedy” was fast taking hold in Britain – and in much the same way Thatcherism’s impacts can still be felt on society today, so too can alternative comedy’s.

Running for 2 series (12 episodes in total) on BBC2 between 1982-84, anarchic and slightly surreal sitcom The Young Ones epitomised the break between older styles of comedy and the new wave. Although The Young Ones has been called ground-breaking and classic, it is also now regarded as somewhat dated for its jokes pertaining to current events. Therefore, its scripts are an interesting source for an insight into the time in which it was produced and based: early 1980s Britain.

Firstly, it is important to understand what The Young Ones actually was. Written by Ben Elton, Rik Mayall and Lise Mayer[4] and with additional material provided by Alexei Sayle, it followed the misadventures of four vastly different university students at the fictional Scumbag College in North London. Whilst the four were never seen doing anything remotely akin to studying, it aimed at being representative of university life, students and the squalor they lived in. The show was not a conventional sitcom in that it did not pertain to a family and it featured a musical act in every episode so that it could be classified as “light entertainment”, as the BBC had no further budget available for sitcoms at the time. Because many of its principal actors came from the stand-up comedy circuit, there was an emphasis on excitement and unpredictability over discernible plots and many memorable scenes featured characters injuring themselves and others, destroying bits of the set and crashing through walls, as well as randomly interspersed and unrelated cutaway gag segments. There was a cartoonish level of slapstick violence, swearing and toilet humour, which appear milder to today’s palate than 40 years ago.

British audiences were divided by The Young Ones mostly along age lines, with younger viewers engaging readily with this new style of comedy and older viewers seeing it as unnecessarily vulgar and silly. Indeed, the characters that had been transplanted from their actors’ stand-up routines were deliberately disgusting, exaggerated caricatures and horrible to one another. Mayall himself played wannabe lefty anarchist Rick, who frequently came to rather explosive blows with the violent punk medical student, Vyvyan (played by Mayall’s comedy partner, Adrian Edmondson). Also featured was badly done to, depressed hippie Neil (played by Nigel Planer) and the mysterious leader and straight man of the group, Mike The Cool Person (played by Christopher Ryan, the only one of the core cast without a comedy background). Sayle too appeared in every episode as either their hated landlord Balowski or a member of his family, where he would deliver a short stand-up monologue to the camera. The show’s title (and opening theme) was derived from the Cliff Richard song of the same name, as Mayall’s character was a huge fan.

The Young Ones took on the issues of its day, perhaps none more so than the episode “Bomb”. “Bomb” uses dark humour to address fears over nuclear war by having an atom bomb land in the characters’ kitchen at the start of the episode. Even before the characters deal with the unexploded bomb, the script is already hinting at the theme of nuclear war in this cutaway gag sequence, featuring a family on a packet of cereal:

FATHER: Would you two shut up and keep smiling? We’re supposed to be the ideal nuclear family!

GIRL: Post-nuclear, more like!

Not only was this segment ridiculing the “ideal nuclear family” that was promoted by the Thatcher governments – none of the characters posing as a family get along at all and the “father” reveals himself to be gay, thus exposing the lie that there is truly an “ideal” family – it also managed to slip in a quick gag about nuclear war. This reflected a genuine belief by many at the time that nuclear war was coming, especially amongst the young.[5]

When the main characters finally become aware of the bomb in their kitchen, the script offers this response:

NEIL: I’m going upstairs to get the incredibly helpful and informative “Protect and Survive” manual! Nobody better touch this while I’m gone!

This reference to the Protect and Survive manual, which at the time and retrospectively has been regarded as useless in the event of an actual nuclear attack, appears for the purpose of ridiculing it. Having the character of Neil act as though the manual could help deal with something as serious as an atom bomb in the kitchen employs sarcasm as a critical tool. Protect and Survive featured suggestions such as painting the windows of the house white in order to deflect the heat from a blast, which The Young Ones also satirised:

RICK: Neil, can you lend me five- What are you doing?

[NEIL is reading his survival manual while painting himself white with a paintbrush]

NEIL: Oh, painting myself white to deflect the blast.

RICK: That’s great, isn’t it? Racial discrimination, even in death! What are these? [indicates a few lunchbags on the table]

NEIL: Sandbags!

The misinterpretation of the manual’s instructions, as well as the substitution of items deemed vital for items found in the house, reflects the feeling that most British households were simply unprepared for a nuclear attack and stood very little chance of survival. This is compounded later in the episode, when the four main characters resort to hiding underneath the kitchen table as a means of escaping the blast of the bomb – something many had resorted to in air raids during WWII but which was drastically inadequate protection against an atom bomb. This episode also portrayed the nihilism in British culture over nuclear war – a nihilism that can be found in other cultural sources, such as The Smiths song “Ask”[6] – through the character of Vyvyan, who spends much of the episode attempting to set the bomb off.

This show being the work of alternative comedians, The Young Ones also utilised its anarchic tone to critique the Thatcher administration of the time. This was usually done through the character of Rick, who blamed Margaret Thatcher for most problems faced by the group. Though his character existed to satirise upper-class closet conservatives as well as overzealous student activists, he was something of a mouthpiece for the left-wing writers. Some of his more memorable outbursts include:

RICK: We haven’t got any money! Vyvyan’s baby will be a pauper! Oliver Twist! Jeffrey Dickens! Back to Victorian values! [directly to camera, angrily] I hope you’re satisfied, Thatcher!

RICK: Neil! The bathroom’s free! Unlike the country under the Thatcherite junta!

Other characters were used to critique the government too:

RICK: School’s out forever! Yeah, come on everyone! Let all your hairs hang out! Do whatever you want!

MIKE: What’s all the excitement, Rick? Has education finally been cut altogether? That’s the only reason I voted Tory.

The first of these is a reference to the 1983 interview in which Thatcher endorsed a return to “Victorian values”. That is, a rolling back of the state to unburden the individual and set them free to prosper, should they put the effort in. This New Right attitude, combined with the high unemployment figures from that year, created the view that Thatcherism was about looking out for “number one”. This wasn’t aided by Employment Secretary Norman Tebbit’s “Get On Your Bike” speech at the Conservative Party Conference in 1981. The Young Ones captured the mood of particularly the youth in such a climate – one in which many felt misunderstood and patronised – in a cutaway segment featuring the fictional TV programme Nozin’ Aroun’:

BAZ: Rol! A lot of my mates say to me, “Oh Baz, what is the point?” What would you say to them?

ROLAND: Well surely, Baz, your mates must realise that there definitely is a point!

BAZ: So a real message of hope and good cheer there – from Roland, a really ace guy!

To summarise; just as is the case today, early 1980s Britons were facing uncertainty. This was especially the case for anyone working in manufacturing industries, as the unsuccess of the Miners’ Strike of 1984 signified a wider trend in British industry. The government’s overarching aim of turning society away from one in which a “nanny state” risked making people idle to one where everyone was free to accumulate wealth that would trickle down to the less well off was never going to be a smooth period to live through. The last tremors of the Cold War didn’t help make the period more bearable. Yet, it is often harder or uncertain times where laughter becomes more valuable to people and The Young Ones – though not to everyone’s political or cultural tastes – undeniably provided some release for younger generations. To call it an entirely accurate depiction of early 1980s Britain would be to forget that its primary purpose was amusement. Nevertheless, it does provide a colourful insight and one that is remembered with fondness by those who grew up watching it, even today.

[1] Protect and Survive was a series of government issued pamphlets, public information films and radio broadcasts produced in the late 1970s/early 1980s, to be distributed 72 hours before a nuclear attack was expected. Public interest meant they were released in 1980.

[2] https://countryeconomy.com/unemployment/uk?dr=1983-12, December 1983

[3] Office for National Statistics, December 2019

[4] All of whom are alumni of the University of Manchester.

[5] After speaking to some adults who were young during this period, Mr Smith revealed how (aged 11 in 1983) he told his class: “I want to be there when the bomb drops. I want to be right next to it so I’m disintegrated and don’t know anything about it.” Additionally, he was under the impression that a bomb would likely be dropped on Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester.

[6] “If it’s not love / Then it’s the bomb / Then it’s the bomb that will bring us together” – S. Morrissey & J. Marr, “Ask”, The World Won’t Listen, 1987

Bibliography:

Sources:

B. Elton, R. Mayall & L. Mayer, “Demolition”, The Young Ones, BBC2, 1982

B. Elton, R. Mayall & L. Mayer, “Bomb”, The Young Ones, BBC2, 1982

B. Elton, R. Mayall & L. Mayer, “Cash”, The Young Ones, BBC2, 1984

B. Elton, R. Mayall & L. Mayer, “Nasty”, The Young Ones, BBC2, 1984

B. Elton, R. Mayall & L. Mayer, “Summer Holiday”, The Young Ones, BBC2, 1984

Central Office of Information, Protect and Survive, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1980 Transcript of Brian Walden interview with Margaret Thatcher for BBC, 1983: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105087

[blackswaneuroparedux]

It [liberalism] is also pretty rampant on the domestic front, at least in Britain, where the two restraining isms of socialism and high Toryism have been ground into the dust by the Thatcherite revolution. Politicians of all parties, including the Conservatives, are liberal now.

Sir Peregrine Worsthorne

[georgefairbrother]

Within a year of the end of the Miners’ Strike, another major UK industrial action had dramatic implications for an entire industry’s workforce. This time the disruption involved printers working for Rupert Murdoch’s News International, at that time publisher of The Times, Sun and News of the World.

On February 15th, 1986, BBC News reported;

“…Eight police officers have been injured and 58 people arrested in the worst outbreak of violence yet outside the News International printing plant in Wapping, east London…Police estimated 5,000 demonstrators gathered near the printing works for a mass demonstration…Similar mass protests have taken place regularly outside the Wapping plant ever since the start of a strike three weeks ago over new working conditions and the move from Fleet Street to cheaper premises in East London…”

New computer-based production technologies meant that a significantly reduced workforce would be required to operate the new plant. News International management had secretly secured the cooperation of the EETPU (electricians’ union) and created a parallel workforce. Around 6 000 Fleet Street printworkers were summarily dismissed immediately upon striking, and production began at the new plant with virtually no delay.

Rupert Murdoch said of his dealings with the print unions;

“…For 17 years there, I lay down and had these people run over me. Day after day, week after week, month after month, with bad, idle wasteful practices in all our plants…”

In response to a reporter’s question he denied that he was out to break the printers’ unions, but to preserve his newspapers ‘for the people that do work for them’.

The General Secretary of SOGAT 82 (Society of Graphical and Allied Trades), Brenda (later Baroness) Dean (1943-2018), described the behavior of Murdoch and his company as a ‘conspiracy of deceit’ over secretly recruiting strike-breaking labour while negotiations between her union and News International management were ongoing. Having discussed with police plans for orderly and peaceful picketing, she blamed extreme left and right agitators, a destructive minority ‘rent-a-mob’, for the picket line violence that ensued.

A senior Metropolitan Police officer concurred;

“..We saw the classic example of honest well-intentioned union members supporting their cause being joined by diverse elements whose only interest was in causing as much trouble as possible…”

News International did not lose a single night of production during the thirteen months of industrial action, which resulted in over 1200 arrests and 410 police officers being injured. With echoes of the Miners' Strike, police were accused of aggressive and heavy handed tactics against picketers and also local residents, many of whom were sympathetic to the strikers.

The strike ended in defeat for the unions, and by 1988 all the major national newspapers had moved their printing operations away from Fleet Street with labour saving technology.

[chauchau64]

viper and his thatcheristic symbol, the margaret thatcher body pillow. and look! he even got his spray tan done for his m’lady miss thatcher! isn’t that just lovely-sauce?

[nando161mando]

[zippocreed501]

Glenda Jackson MP

[theoscarsproject]

My Beautiful Laundrette (1985). An ambitious Pakistani Briton and his white boyfriend strive for success and hope when they open a glamorous laundromat.

This really feels like it captures a moment in time in a way so many films try to but don't achieve. In that sense, it's a richly layered, tense film about Thatcherism, white supremacy, and the often wrought fantasy of class mobility. It is, of course, also a gay love story, and I feel like it's in the latter that it sort of falls down. It's no doubt sensual and the performances of and chemistry between the actors was great, but it never quite felt like it wove into the story or themes in a way that landed. Still, one worth checking out. 7/10.

[redthreadfilms]

The Red and the Blue (1983, Ken Loach)

The Red and the Blue was transmitted on Channel 4 almost exactly a year after Ken Loach had filmed both Conservative and Labour party autumn conferences in October 1982. The film is a fly-on-the-wall look at both conferences and focuses on the grassroots of each party, although a number of Members of Parliament and other significant figures are also shown speaking from the conference floor and in fringe events. It includes this wonderful takedown of soon to be Labour leader Neil Kinnock by Dennis Skinner. Kinnock was attempting to dress himself in the robes of the left at this point, in preparation to succeed Michael Foot as leader, and would go on to sabotage Labour Party support for the 1984 miners’ strike.

[kropotkindersurprise]

On April 8 we celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher, and remember all the lives she destroyed.

[ministerforpeas]

Walk On By... (Thatcher's legacy)

[logorrhea5mip]

[chriswhodrawsstuff]

I care because you don't.

I remember getting my first pay slip in 1989, looking at it and feeling sick. Not because it was so little, but because it was so much. I felt so guilty for having so much but in a world with so much awfulness in it. Okay, so I was 19, Thatcher was still PM and I had to walk past cardboard City most days. (And Rachel Reeves talked today about Thatcherism in glowing terms) and I couldn’t cope…

[53rdcenturyhero]

Rail travel in England and Wales.

Close ticket offices eliminates 12% (one eighth) of passengers, means losing 12%(one eighth) of ticket revenue. Upswing in fare non-payment has been clocked to be a rapid 25% increase in recent identical implementation.

Which means 88% of passengers have to pay more very quickly to make up that gap. And even slightly more very quickly so 14%...

A 14% fare price rise (slow or fast) would cause unemployment and a rise in working from home, which would irritate the city office landowners... a proven lobby that the Tories pay attention to. So they stopped the closure of over a thousand rail ticket offices. For now.

For now.

Stop forcing disablement onto people. Allow accommodation for different physicalities to remain. Stop the constant upmove of profit and lack of investment in stock line and comms. Allow rail usage to be helpful to the user not a constant money mill.

Other countries manage better. We see this.

[georgefairbrother]

One of many contentious issues in the 1984-85 Miner’s Strike was the lack of a national strike ballot. Six months into the strike, on September 28th, 1984, a judge ruled in favour of miners from Yorkshire and Derbyshire who were seeking to have the dispute declared illegal, paving the way for them to return to work.

Presiding judge, Mr Justice Nicholls, remarked that the National Union of Mineworkers in Derbyshire had ‘ridden roughshod’ over the rights of its members who, in light of his ruling, could not be sanctioned for crossing what was now an illegal picket line. "It is as plain as a pikestaff that without a national ballot the strike in Derbyshire is unlawful and contravenes union rules," the judge said.

NUM leader Arthur Scargill dismissed the findings and ruled out any implications for the future of the strike on a nationwide basis, deriding the verdict as another attempt by an unelected judge to interfere in the union's affairs. Scargill was subsequently cited for Contempt, and the union fined 200 000 pounds. When this went unpaid, the court ordered sequestration of NUM assets.

The Labour leader at the time, Neil Kinnock, was no fan of Arthur Scargill nor of his management of the strike, telling The Guardian in 2009, that Scargill possessed suicidal vanity, exploited picket line solidarity and fell right into the government’s trap. He wasn't all that keen on Mrs Thatcher either;

"…A ballot would have been won for the strike…What it would have done is guarantee unity right across the mining labour force. The strike was ruined the minute it was politicised and in the mind of Arthur Scargill it was always a political struggle…He fed himself the political illusion that as long as the miners were united they had the right to destabilise and overthrow the democratically elected government. The miners didn't deserve him, they deserved much, much better. My view is Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill deserved each other. But no-one else did…"

See also:

[tuttle-did-it]

Came across an interview with Colm Meaney where he talks politics and theatre. He seems like such an interesting bloke, wish I could sit down and talk politics with him

And I'm happy to add that he is, indeed, a Union Man.

[foone]

Full disclosure ahead of time: I'm trans, and not a fan of Harry Potter, as you might guess. However...

My favorite thing about the writing of Harry Potter is how the first book is set several years earlier for no reason. It's set in 1991 and came out in 1997

Then because of how the books came out over many year and each book is a year later in the story, the last book ends up being set in 1997 and published in 2007, a full decade later.

This would be an interesting writing exercise if it was at all used by J. K. Rowling, but it's not. This very specific dating of the books, and increasing dated setting is just there so that Rowling can make repeated anachronistic errors because she forgot her characters aren't living in the modern day.

There is no upside to definitively setting Harry Potter in the near past: nothing comes of it in a way that'd be impossible to do if the books were set in a vague present. All setting them in the past does is let Rowling repeatedly make mistake, like having Dudley get a Playstation for his birthday.

In the 1997 she wrote that in? Perfectly reasonable present for a kid! In the summer of 1994 this scene is set it? Fucking impossible. The PS1 wouldn't be out in Japan until that December, and wouldn't be released in Europe until the next year, after his NEXT birthday.

And it's like... This is just the most well known of the anachronisms. There's an endless parade of them solely because she decided to set the books in specific years, a choice which gained her NOTHING! This doesn't happen because the final battle needs to happen at the millennium for prophecy reasons, or because she needs her characters to meet up with real life people who were dead or otherwise unavailable by the time the books were written, it's just some story element she picked and then never for one second thought about the consequences.

(Another retroactively funny mistake caused by this is that she ends up having a character inadvertently misgender Margaret Thatcher of all people, because they call the previous prime minister "he", and the because the scene is set in 1996, the prime minister is John Major, so the previous one should be Thatcher, but she's clearly thinking the current PM would be Tony Blair, and the previous one would be John Major)

I dunno. It feels like there's something meaningful in how J. K. Rowling made a clearly bad decision once and hasn't thought about any of the negative effects of her decision, standing by and doubling down on it, no matter how much it doesn't help her or anyone. It just seems like this might be a metaphor for something.

But who can really say?

(that last line assumes you're using dark mode)