Thatcher

[EddieM]

It aint what you do its the way that you do it. In that respect... spectacular fail.

Any idiot can turn an economy round by selling off the silver... sadly you can only do it once.

Instead of digging the coal out at a loss, it still sits there.
400 yrs' worth, should we ever need it in the future.

And left them very very expensively flooded. Bad move.

 

[JBR]

It aint what you do its the way that you do it. In that respect... spectacular fail.

Any idiot can turn an economy round by selling off the silver... sadly you can only do it once.

Instead of digging the coal out at a loss, it still sits there.
400 yrs' worth, should we ever need it in the future.

And left them very very expensively flooded. Bad move.

At the time, mining for coal in this country was uneconomical and it is still cheaper to import it. However, I do agree. The situation may change and it may yet prove cheaper to mine our own than pay for other countries'.

Which begs the question: How much would it have cost to maintain the more productive coal mines in Britain? Presumably, water would have to be pumped out regularly and safety inspections conducted periodically, for example. How much maintenance would have cost is beyond my knowledge, unfortunately.

 

[Brigadier]

It aint what you do its the way that you do it. In that respect... spectacular fail.

Any idiot can turn an economy round by selling off the silver... sadly you can only do it once.

Instead of digging the coal out at a loss, it still sits there.
400 yrs' worth, should we ever need it in the future.

And left them very very expensively flooded. Bad move.

Any more bad than effectively burning money to fetch it out?

 

[EddieM]

It aint what you do its the way that you do it. In that respect... spectacular fail.

Any idiot can turn an economy round by selling off the silver... sadly you can only do it once.

Instead of digging the coal out at a loss, it still sits there.
400 yrs' worth, should we ever need it in the future.

And left them very very expensively flooded. Bad move.

Any more bad than effectively burning money to fetch it out?

Nope... I agree with her primary goal of breaking the miltant unions and scrapping uncompetitive work practises. However the mines should have been mothballed not abandoned also there should have been some sort of cohesive succession plan for the regions affected rather than damning generations to benefits and poverty. Benefits incidentally paid for from north sea oil revenue.

 

[joe-90]

Wilson closed more pits than Thatcher. Why does everyone forget that?
http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2013/04/wilson-closed-more-coal-mines-than-thatcher.html

 

[JBR]

It's true that Maggie comes in for more criticism than she perhaps deserves.

The only thing I really didn't like (as far as I can remember) was when she encouraged the collapse and destruction of the regional ITV system. The 'big five' ITV companies (Central, Granada, London Weekend, Thames and Yorkshire) each produced high-quality programmes (and admittedly the occasional crap) and each tended to have an individual flavour of programme which, in my opinion, made things more interesting.

Then things began to deteriorate. Thames, perhaps the most productive of the big five, was replaced by Carlton which I don't remember having actually produced any programmes let alone any of quality. Next, Granada and Carlton between them began to take over all the other 15 ITV companies, and finally Granada took the lot (with the exception of Scottish Television and Ulster TV, both of which still exist). Increasingly, programmes were made by independent TV companies and paid for by ITV,

Now, with the occasional excellent programme such as Downton Abbey, the output of ITV is dire. There is no longer any regional flavour except for, I suppose, regional news programmes.

I'm sure there were financial considerations that persuaded her to do the deed, but I'm sure we lost more than we gained.

 

[Micilin]

It's true that Maggie comes in for more criticism than she perhaps deserves.

The only thing I really didn't like (as far as I can remember) was when she encouraged the collapse and destruction of the regional ITV system. The 'big five' ITV companies (Central, Granada, London Weekend, Thames and Yorkshire) each produced high-quality programmes (and admittedly the occasional crap) and each tended to have an individual flavour of programme which, in my opinion, made things more interesting.

Then things began to deteriorate. Thames, perhaps the most productive of the big five, was replaced by Carlton which I don't remember having actually produced any programmes let alone any of quality. Next, Granada and Carlton between them began to take over all the other 15 ITV companies, and finally Granada took the lot (with the exception of Scottish Television and Ulster TV, both of which still exist). Increasingly, programmes were made by independent TV companies and paid for by ITV,

Now, with the occasional excellent programme such as Downton Abbey, the output of ITV is dire. There is no longer any regional flavour except for, I suppose, regional news programmes.

I'm sure there were financial considerations that persuaded her to do the deed, but I'm sure we lost more than we gained.

Yes, it was a good system, and since then there has been a 'rush to the bottom' (with exceptions) with the proliferation of channels.
Obviously the world of media has moved on, but I think your point on regional flavour is spot on.


Hard to believe now that Channel 4 was such a radical idea !

 

[AronSearle]

However the mines should have been mothballed not abandoned

Can you point to a cost based analysis that this is worthwhile doing?

also there should have been some sort of cohesive succession plan for the regions affected rather than damning generations to benefits and poverty. Benefits incidentally paid for from north sea oil revenue.

That makes the assumption that there was anything governments could do?

What was needed was jobs, the government was already spending its limit on paying some places to build ships, others to shuffle paperwork and others to staff hospitals.

 

[Doug99]

It aint what you do its the way that you do it. In that respect... spectacular fail.

Any idiot can turn an economy round by selling off the silver... sadly you can only do it once.

Instead of digging the coal out at a loss, it still sits there.
400 yrs' worth, should we ever need it in the future.

And left them very very expensively flooded. Bad move.

Any more bad than effectively burning money to fetch it out?

Advancing technology will enable us to recover the coal with minimal manual input in the not too distant future.

It was not long ago that we were worrying that oil would be running dry in our lifetime, but technology can now reach oil fields which were considered impossible.

 

[JBR]

However the mines should have been mothballed not abandoned

Can you point to a cost based analysis that this is worthwhile doing?

I don't know that there was one. Perhaps there should have been. In any event, they would need to be able to see into the future to know the answer.