Listen, high growing countries do not always keep it up for a prolonged period meaning they slow down like Poland, Soo since UK economy is doing bad doesn't mean it is forever

Thatcher was wrong!!

Both the U.S and U.K economy can actually get better if only the govt can start making better decisions for the sake of it's citizens, cos' they've really made life more difficult for its residents. Hyperinflation has left the less haves bearing the brunt of the burden. Its already eating into my entire $620k retirement portfolio. Like where else can we invest our money with less risks?

Well I think the UK is doing better then the way people feel, even if wages have not kept up, housing cost issues there is probably a gap between sentiment and actual real financial standing of the people at least the middle class. You see the seme issues in Canada, US and Australia, the impact of inflation requires adjusting spending on a personal level and that can be hard in a consumer and services society. The UK after a few years of higher rates, lower consumer spending, should have enough gap to bounce back in the coming years but it could be that much better if some actions were taken today. Anyway, I just think the UK will bounce back as rates are lowered in the next few years to come but the UK has a large engine of growth that is held back on a number of fronts. Lack of industrial policy, over regulations, lack of high earning wages outside of a few cities. The company I work for has an office in UK, but of course it is in London, why does it always have to be in London? I hear the workers complain of the high cost of living, why not offer incentive to have companies re-locate their UK office to a lower cost city, allowing injection of higher wage workers and the services they consume to less wealthy cities. For example the company I work for has an office in the city of Reno Nevada which is not a wealthy city by any means but the workers that move to the city boost the local economy and in return get to enjoy a low cost of living while still making very good income levels, buying them more purchasing power and much lower cost of living.

Thatcher just handed the country over to the spivs and chancers of the City of London, and shut down most of british industry. The coal industry was just one of these industries. Why are TATA Steel in trouble ? Because the market for steel is so low in the UK !

Any government would have had to stop subsidizing the Coal industry and later the shipbuilding industry. Thatcher however made it into a war against the unions with devastating consequences for thousands of families. The brutality was horrifying.

THATCHER SOLD PUBLIC SERVICES THAT DIDN'T BELONG TO HER OR HER CRONNIES WHO MADE MILLIONS SCAB, AND BLAIRE EVEN WORSE, AND MP'S HAVE GOT MORE REPGNANT TO TRUE BRITS

It's Scotland's oil!

If renewables are so economically viable why are India ,China and most developing countries building coal fired power stations surely renewables such as solar would be there first choice? are is it just the massive government subsidies that make them viable ,just like the massive subsidies that bailed the city of London out in 2009

Start early with diversified investments in stocks, bonds, and real estate. Maximize contributions to tax-advantaged accounts like 401(k)s and IRAs. Regularly review and adjust your strategy to ensure security....

Too many Chiefs. Not enough Indians.

Ask Shylock that ruined you to lend you money. Shylock will take your pants off. I think you call Shylock the "Bank of England". 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

She was very right but I'm not sure that she was correct.

No, there fixed it for you. Thatcher threw away all the North Sea oil money on unemployment benefits (caused by the suicidally high interest rates and an overvalued pound), tax cuts, and other giveaways to the rich. She massively speeded up the decline that required a real industrial policy. Much of UK GDP "growth" is just bullshit counting of financial costs as output.

Thatcher closed 160 pits in her time -11yrs. Wilson closed 290 pits in his two terms-10 years. Many of these were made by Tony Benn as energy secretary. So why is Thatcher hated more?

rapid improvement in battery technology allows for a few seconds of backup, and as it is now and how it looks to be for some years in the future unless there is an unexpected breakthrough you might keep your computer on for a few hours but not a steel plant or a lathe

GDP is 99% correlated with flammable fossils resources. Materials 100% correlated. UK chose to fatten the wallets of the billionaires that have robbed it blind instead of building a large sovereign fund to deal with the inevitable decline in flammable fossils resources.

Hundreds of billions of pounds went offshore. The city of London facilitates the theft. UK leadership is horrible

She didnt do any of the things she did for the reasons stated in this video, just look at all the other industries she destroyed. It was about social engineering, destroying the solidarity of the working class and shifting power back in to the hands of the few with the introduction of Neoliberalism and the age of rugged individualism, the same agenda Reagan was implementing at the time in the US. No one can argue that coal was on the decline but we only have to look to how France and Germany handled their transitions to know there was a much fairer way of going about it.

This would and could not have occurred were it not for North Sea oil. Because North Sea oil raised our economy it had the effect of masking relative under-performance and now with its own demise it has left the British economy, now dependent on services, lop-sided and with poor productivity. Hence, the manner of coal's decline and the method by which we used oil revenues (as a recurring cost rather than for investment a la Norway), the UK economic performance is rather a Cinderella. It looks goods until you strip out oil and when you do you see its problems. Oil revenues peaked in the wake of the GFC. Our performance since then has been poor. I believe it wrong to be now comparing coal vs solar etc., It is undoubtedly true were the coal industry still around now it would be uncompetitive and likely to close. It is whether we could have used the oil money better than for social security for the many laid off and artificially cutting the headline rate of tax. Arguably had we placed the money in a fund we could have paid for better infrastructure over the period. The real question is whether you can inflict such damage to areas of your country that 40 years on you are still talking about it and its effects on the people and places. In fact many of these areas had the perverse irony of voting for Brexit in 2016. The legacy of North Sea oil is perverse.

Recent years have seen Coal Mines Opened Open Cast And other mines Because Industry Must Have Coal No Coal Means No Steel

Do we need to make steel from a strategic point of view, is a more relevant question, in my opinion. If so then yes we need coal. Or at leas some skill to restart it if needed.... Yes there are lots of modern super materials but ulitmately in war you always end up using heavy metal.

Coal wasn't dethroned by wind turbines. It was dethroned by modern minerals, things like lithium. We could still mine for things like that in the UK but we don't even look for it...

The decline in the UK and the US started with massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Public services went into steep decline. Wealth concentrated and the economy financialized as industry declined. Raise taxes on the rich and enact a wealth tax. Control the banks to reduce the rampant speculation in securities. But this will never happen, the rich have used their money to control politics.🐝🐝

One part of this debate that gets utterly ignored is the pay scale of the miners. The idea that they were impoverished and starving is a myth. If we compare their paychecks to those of the average British working stiff we see that they were making good money. And that's why people went to the voting booths saying they were voting labour. And when they actually marked their ballot they were voting for Thatcher.

Thatcher used NS Oil to fund in part the defeat of the Miners, production during the 83 - 86 period often went over 3M/BBKL/D and at during several periods Spot oil prices of $12-$18 were seen sinking well below the Contract price of $25-$45. There was a glut in the European market which many oil and refining concerns took full advantage off. The governance of UK NS Oil from the very start was poor and Norway made much more revenue by selling Spot into the market when the price was well above contract. Not only did the Thatcher government fail to develop a structured Energy Strategy, there were massive costs incurred in shutting the coal industry down in a very short 2 year period. The EEC shutdown mines all over Benelux, France and Germany in adherence to a 40 year plan that ensured new industry was established in mining areas and employment stabilised before mines were closed, no such plans were introduced in the UK to slow closures and reduce the impact on the Economy. Tory Energy Strategy is incompetent they have no strategic Energy Plan and the 80's saw £400B in lost revenue. Current Oil production is around 500 ~ 650K/BBL/D a 12 year low yet there is a +75% Windfall tax on energy in place, obvious the Tory machine turns to Energy every time it is in trouble.

The question is not whether mining coal now makes sense, it is did it make sense when Thatcher closed the mines. Remember that this is the time when the US and the UK destroyed manufacturing. Has the new financialized economy helped the working class? I submit heavy industry was destroyed by Reagan and Thatcher in order to kill the unions. Now we have to import everything and we have no industrial base. If Trump imposes his tariffs on China, inflation will be rampant because we can’t make the stuff we need. When the dollar loses its status as world reserve currency, the standard of living in the US will drop dramatically. Can democracy survive?🐝🐝

Mrs Thatcher didn't close ALL the mines and Brown and Darling noticeably pushed forward the " dash for gas". The labour government of 1997 didn't do anything for the mining industry. Nicola Sturgeon closed the last coal fired power stations in Scotland EARLY and that ended open cast mining in Scotland. Those were the best paying manual jobs in former deep mining areas like mine. The health problems experienced by miners even in those who made it to retirement were just awful.

When the costs of green energy is computed, it never includes the cost of having to have back up for the base load. We simply don't have the technology to store green energy at present. So we have to incur the costs of having that back up, potentially to provide 100% of our energy needs.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is the gas of life.

For a start, Thatcher was despicable individual. As for the miner strike, she sort to destroy not only the hard working men in the coalfields but also Scargill.

More coal miners lost their jobs in the 11 years before Mrs Thatcher became PM than in the 11 years she was PM.

The problem with the coal industry was not a question of whether it had to close, but how it was handled. Thatcher was a warmonguerer and only knew how to create enemies and fight. France under Mitterrand, facing the same problem with coal at the same time, instead of just trying to smash unions and destroy livelihoods in the coal areas, created a system of concessions and tax breaks to attract new businesses to the area and create new employment. Some of those companies, ironically enough, came from the north of England. Which politician did the best thing for their people? No need for compensation, just a need for some basic intelligent thinking.

Thatcher transferred more money from Government to the people than any other Politician in History, even Angela Raynor benefited from it, now she wants to make sure nobody else does.

Thatcher was right about most things and she set up the UK, it was doing very well until Brown got hold of the cheque book.

How is CO2 a pollutant? It isn't - it's essential for all life.

I fought the coal miners in the 1972 (Heath) strike as a West Yorkshire Police Officer.. I kept Thorpe Marsh Power Station open so that hospitals could get electricity. I was spat on daily, and shoved under moving articulated lorries. Coal Mining communities were rife with drunkenness and incest.

How do you manage a transition? Easy! Allow the free market to do it. The most efficient will be the cheapest and we aren't subsidizing inefficient energy like solar, wind etc.

The Thatcher government's main aim was to smash the power of the miners unions after the legacy of the miners bringing down Mr Heath's conservative gov in 1974. During the 1973/4 miner's strike a 3 day week had to be introduced to ration electricity across the country and Heath forced a general election which he didn't win outright and Labour returned to power. Economics didn't figure that much, which is why coal continued to be imported from S. America and Australia. . So yes a managed transition would have been a lot better for everyone, but politics trumped this idea.

These videos are so well made and interesting, great work Tejvan.

Whatever the outcome it wasn't through compassion but through ideology.

It probably went too far.

It's funny how you didn't bring up the facts that thatcher stockpilled excess coal to offset the effects of the strike, and even considered sending the army in to dig and transport coal if the strike had gone on for much longer. Its easy to look back with hindsight about how the environmental movment came to be, and made these desicions look good retroactively, but the closing of u.k mines was about one thing and one thing only, breaking the NUM, the same union that had brought down Edward Heaths government: it was about revenge. Its no coniscidence that for decades after the british mines had closed the U.K became a net importer of coal, there was no plan, no schemes to actually replace the coal infrastructure until much later, no, the u.k would be free to burn as much coal as it wanted, the only thing that mattered is that the coal wasnt mined in britain anymore.

First: if European politicians cannot solve the demographic crisis, then let them go to... Second: the demographic crisis cannot be solved by supporting the LGBTI ideology. Third: the demographic crisis cannot be solved by equating same-sex marriage with heterosexual marriage or even with marriage with children in the family. The demographic crisis cannot be solved by inviting people from the third world to Europe who do not know how to legitimize themselves sufficiently and consider homosexual partnerships to be a crime. What the current politicians in our beloved Europe are showing is plain treason, dilettantism, amateurism and they must be justly condemned... The policy of the government, which cannot ensure sufficient population growth in a community of two hundred million people with internal resources, is reprehensible and such politicians should not be obeyed, but send to the historical dump...

Battery storage isn’t going to make renewables reliable. There is a huge environmental cost to these lithium batteries. And the scale of generation will be too great for batteries to handle. Nuclear is the only option.

Can see some similarities with further introduction of AI to replace labour 🙄

It is sad Labour shut more pits than the Cons but no Labour are workers friends not!

Thatcher closed the coal industry and started importing coal from Poland because of her personal grudge against the NUM. It’s true that the transition from coal as an employer was badly managed - or rather not managed at all, the ppl were just stuck on benefits - but green energy was nowhere in sight at that time.

Scargill walked those poor people into a complete disaster She laid the trap and he walked right into it