Jump to content

Condolences For Margaret ...


axulsuv
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Apart from the good things she did (Mr Whippy) she destroyed many lives and community's.

How many lives did WSC ruin with his incessant warmongering and self belief that he was destined for greatness? Yet he went to the grave universally mourned. Thatcher did what was necessary. That she didn't see or predict all of the long term consequences of her actions was human frailty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

Re WSC, the (failed) promises of a land fit for heroes gave birth to the unions.

Well sort of. Attlees post war govt was the first labour govt. But the unions had been around well prior to that and led to the formation of the labour party. I apologize if I'm being patronizing

I, naively, expect pm's to look to long term consequences.

In an ideal world yes. I doubt whether MHT went out to destroy and/or humiliate the working classes. Perhaps she had faith that UK industry would regroup and redirect itself after her demolition of the unions and the miners. If that was the case she was, sadly, mistaken as she was with the banks. One thing you cannot deny is that it was game over for UK mining. There was no coal left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

He he. WSC on Clement Attlee: "A modest man with much to be modest about.".

Re coal: Is there still plenty left? If there is I apologize for my erroneous statement. But was it economical to extract it in the early eighties? If not would it have been economical if the mines had been more automated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thatcher wanted nuclear power, and got it, sort of. I'm not sure of the details, but she opted for gas cooled I think. 25% efficiency was about average. Coal has to be cheaper long term ??

(TBC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He he. WSC on Clement Attlee: "A modest man with much to be modest about.".

Re coal: Is there still plenty left? If there is I apologize for my erroneous statement. But was it economical to extract it in the early eighties? If not would it have been economical if the mines had been more automated?

This is my big disappointment from the thatcher years, whilst transforming the outdated industry was a must she lacked the vision that manufacturing is essential for long term prosperity, her government was happy to see steel and coal and cars be produced elsewhere. The most recent plants of toyota and Nissan and now triumph have proved we can manufacture profitably and manage efficiently, and had companies like Ford who now produce the iconic transit in TURKEY, been better invested and managed,the relience on banking may have meant that the collapse would not have hit us so hard. It is not the excellence in engineering we lack as the F1 is all here, its the value of it thats missing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dabster, sometimes a culture or society needs a serious kick up the a*** or, in management speak, a paradigm shift. Perhaps the UK was in a spot where it needed that? To see the old wood die and new take over when it was sufficiently mature? Labour, at that time, was pretty poisoned (as was management as we saw with the UK motorcycle industry).

B40: I have read about the gas cooled reactor and if memory serves it was a bad bet. The PWR is a much better option. BTW I am a nuke engineer but not of reactors.

Edited by toofasttim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...