Why everyone hates Thatcher

[Seeker]

An interesting video from Jimmy the Giant YouTube channel explaining how we got into the mess we are currently in. I knew parts of the history but this ties it all together and explains about Neo-liberalism versus the Keynesian economic model (and which has worked best for the UK).

33 mins long and is very detailed (as are all of his videos)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWLn50NjGDA

[garynortheast]

Halfway through the video and I've had to stop, breathe, and do something else for a short while before I punch the screen when that ferkin vile woman's face shows again.

[garynortheast]

Phew! Managed to finish watching it. A very good summary of the role of neoliberalism.

Find a copy of "The Establishment (and how they get away with it)" by Owen Jones. A very detailed history of neoliberalism since WWII, and a brilliantly researched and referenced look at how the "establishment" protects it self.

[admin]

Originally Posted by garynortheast

Phew! Managed to finish watching it. A very good summary of the role of neoliberalism.



Find a copy of "The Establishment (and how they get away with it)" by Owen Jones. A very detailed history of neoliberalism since WWII, and a brilliantly researched and referenced look at how the "establishment" protects it self.

Agreed, it's a great read.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

[redtrummy]

Got to agree with all above and yes I have read OJs book
One thing that did cross my mind, was she was ahead of her time closing down the coal mining industry

[Craig380]

Originally Posted by redtrummy

One thing that did cross my mind, was she was ahead of her time closing down the coal mining industry

That was largely a political move with the main aim being to stop the country being 'held to ransom' (as the Conservative party saw it) by strike action by the NUM (when improvements in safety and working conditions down the mines could have achieved the same objective). It also destabilised one of the UK's biggest and most powerful unions, which was a welcome side-effect from the Tory viewpoint.

While coal isn't as clean as gas, UK coal is high quality compared with imports from Europe or Asia, and produces far lower noxious emissions when burned. Also, UK coal-fired power stations could have been fitted with emissions-reducing equipment in the furnace chimneys: this was actually done very successfully at Drax when it was still a coal-burning plant.

The fact is, our Grid and electricity usage means we have to burn fossil fuels to satisfy demand. Because we don't have any coal-fired power stations any more, and we've been held screwed by EDF's inability to build nukes properly despite them soaking up billions in subsidies, if the wind ain't blowing and the sun isn't shining, we're entirely reliant on gas supplies from Europe.

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by Craig380

<snip> we're entirely reliant on gas supplies from Europe.

Most of the gas that doesn't come from the North Sea, comes by LNG tankers from the US and Middle East. We do not rely very much on 'european gas' (read Russian). We're so well set up with gas imports and a gas grid that the UK gas suppliers can make money re-gassifying LNG and exporting to Europe when market conditions are right.

[Craig380]

I thought we got well over half of our gas imports from Norway?

[redtrummy]

Originally Posted by Craig380

That was largely a political move with the main aim being to stop the country being 'held to ransom' (as the Conservative party saw it) by strike action by the NUM (when improvements in safety and working conditions down the mines could have achieved the same objective). It also destabilised one of the UK's biggest and most powerful unions, which was a welcome side-effect from the Tory viewpoint.

While coal isn't as clean as gas, UK coal is high quality compared with imports from Europe or Asia, and produces far lower noxious emissions when burned. Also, UK coal-fired power stations could have been fitted with emissions-reducing equipment in the furnace chimneys: this was actually done very successfully at Drax when it was still a coal-burning plant.

The fact is, our Grid and electricity usage means we have to burn fossil fuels to satisfy demand. Because we don't have any coal-fired power stations any more, and we've been held screwed by EDF's inability to build nukes properly despite them soaking up billions in subsidies, if the wind ain't blowing and the sun isn't shining, we're entirely reliant on gas supplies from Europe.

Craig, I have some knowledge of the coal industry, live near a town called Coalville, born in a nearby village named Coleorton, helped excavate the remains of a 1850 mine that is now a visual display for all to appreciate. It was the ironic result of that women's decisions that I find somewhat amusing in a strange way.

[Ruffy]

An interesting watch. So let me do devil's advocate and throw out a bit of a provocative counter argument to try to temper the sentiment ...

Whilst I don't agree with how much of what Thatcher promoted has panned out (I'm actively angry about some of it), and I think she deserved some blame for some of her choices, overall I also tend to think Thatcher gets more flak than she deserves individually. To vilify her as an almost omnipotent and dictatorial sole actor (as many seem to do) is a disproportionate and inappropriate response, IMHO.

She's surely been scapegoated to an extent - Yes, history shows us the lack of foresight about some long term consequences, but there are also the compounding issues of (i) the unwillingness or inability of those who came after her to see and correct the deficiencies and (ii) the somewhat biased application of the benefit of hindsight by many who would have preferred something different and who characterise things as oversimplified binary battle of good vs evil.

One thing that distinguishes her from today's politcians is that she held steadfastly to her ideology - it can be debated how misguided those ideals and policies may have been, but I do think it came across clearly that she had a genuine belief that she was putting the country's prosperity first, and she wasn't swayed [too much] by the consideration of populism. Unlike many of the PM incumbents who came after (some of whom have arguably been just as damaging due to ineffectiveness).

Many of the issues she tackled were probably on glidepath to becoming significant national problems that would always have needed dealing with at some point in the coming future. So maybe it was a case of right problem, wrong solution? But I think it's wrong to despise her for spotting the emerging problems.

As was briefly mentioned in the vid, it's likely she was disappointed and annouyed by those who took selfish advantage of her solutions - perhaps there was naivety there, but we can't ignore that some part of the outcome was probably unintended nonetheless. And one can't sensibly accuse another for not being able to see the future with 100% certainty.