As part of our Politics Unspun series we are unpacking politicians' public comments on coal to challenge any misleading or incorrect messages.

Todays' focus is on comments made during a Westminster Hall debate in December about the oil refining sector. During the debate, Lee Anderson MP made some statements about coal use and extraction which we would like to address as part of this series.

I worked in the coal mines in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and the whole industry was decimated by the Conservative Government at the time… What the Government did not realise at the time is that when they got rid of a coalmine—each coalmine had a football team, a rugby team, a cricket team, a community club, a miners’ welfare, a brass band and a bandstand in the local welfare grounds—it destroyed whole communities, and those communities will never come back. They will never be the same again.

We absolutely agree with Mr Anderson’s initial statement; the destruction of Britain’s coal communities in the 1980s was profound, lasting, and traumatic. The way the Thatcher Government closed the mines is now taught internationally as a case study in how not to transition from coal; a warning about what happens when governments shut down an industry without planning for new jobs, new skills, or new economic purpose.

This is why we are surprised that he now forgives Thatcher’s economic policies which directly led to the closure of the pits in such a destructive way. The 1980s mine closures were not inevitable, they were damaging political choices – choices which he now appears to support.

While we want to see the end of coal mining in the UK and elsewhere, we campaign for just transitions which benefit workers and communities. The answer is not to just reopen the pits, but to replace those jobs in industries which aide our transition to clean energy.

It is all well and good saying to somebody, “It’s okay, you can make windmills or solar panels,” or, “We’ll retrain you in green energy,” but they do not want that. This lot do not understand that there are still men and women in this country who want to get up in the morning and go do a proper day’s graft.

I have been one of those working men who gets up in the morning at 5 o’clock and goes and does a dirty, horrible, dangerous job. I know what it is like to come home, after doing a horrible shift on a horrible job. I know what the people in these communities feel like.

Communities deserve better than being told their only future is their past. Mr Anderson paints a picture of working‑class pride rooted in dangerous, exhausting labour. But why should workers be condemned to work in ‘dirty, horrible, dangerous jobs’? Pride does not require danger and we should expect more than that now that we have alternatives. Community does not require coal dust and dignity does not require repeating the mistakes of the 1980s.

He seems to suggest that the electricians, welders, engineers and other workers who are installing solar farms and wind turbines do not ‘do a proper day’s graft’. A real pro‑worker position would be to invest in tomorrow’s industries in former coal regions, guaranteeing secure well‑paid jobs for years to come which support community institutions directly AND protect workers from dangerous conditions.

The lesson of the 1980s is not that we should cling to coal. It is that when transitions are done badly, communities suffer—and when they are done well, communities thrive. Mr Anderson is right to honour the miners. But honouring them means fighting for the future of those communities, not chaining them to their past.

I have heard colleagues talk about “net stupid zero” in the past. We think the targets should be scrapped; we are not against trying different sources of energy to fuel our nation. We are saying we should have a sensible transition. China has got it right: it is burning coal. China is opening coal mines and using coal-fired power stations.

Mr Anderson appears to be contradicting himself within two sentences. ‘We should have a sensible transition’ but ‘China has got it right: it is burning coal’. A ‘sensible’, or just, transition is not what happened in the 1980s, but reopening coal mines and coal power stations now, when the UK has already transitioned from them, would be counter intuitive.

Our view is that China should also be transitioning from coal use and extraction. But pointing to China’s coal use is a way of excusing inaction at home. The Chinese Government should do more to decrease coal use in China. Lee Anderson is a Member of the UK Parliament though and should be helping his community to benefit from the energy transition we are in the midst of.

In summary, Mr Anderson’s views in this debate appear to cling to the positives of the coal mining industry without accepting its negatives. These views do not accept contemporary scientific, economic or legal realities and do not consider either the worsening impacts of climate change if the world does not transition from coal, or the vast opportunities that a just transition offers society.