Melchett:
Carryfast:
Why.My ideas seem like a reasonable view of the facts to me unless you’ve got a better theory to explain Thatcher’s plans for closing down the coal industry and her motives based on the question who gained/s from it all. 
A better theory? Let’s see…
She hated the whole concept of “nationalised” industry/services in any form. She saw government ownership as a socialist idea, privatisation was a cornerstone of her policies.
The problem was that the big nationalised concerns were unattractive to buyers due to the power of the unions & poor labour relations at the time & that needed addressing. No way better to do it than taking on & defeating the biggest, most powerful union.
Once done new employment/strike legislation could be introduced tipping the balance of power in the employers favour.
As for closing the pits… I don’t think she forgot what happened to Heath & was determined it would never happen again. As north sea oil/gas was fully onstream in the 80’s she could easily close the majority of the mines knowing that a cheap enrgy source was only a few hundred miles away, removing the “threat” in the process. Revenge?? make your own mind up.
Also, the privatisation of the then CEGB was hampered by the agreement it had with the NCB to buy x amount of British coal. Repealing the law preventing the use of natural gas for power generation made the CEGB much more attractive to buyers… it was cheaper than coal, Gas power stations were way cheaper to build & produced far less emissions (yes the “green” lobby was already in action)
IMO the whole concept was a short sighted “quick fix”, it looked at the now & ignored the future. Every one of the energy co’s is foreign owned, every one of our water co’s is foreign owned etc etc.
The demand for coal is at an all time high & we sit on approx 3000 million tonnes of the stuff yet we import 3 times what we produce, Gas/oil has been squandered in the drive for a failed ideology leaving us dependent on supplies from Russia & others who could close the tap at any time.
Harold Macmillan described privatisation as “selling off the family silver” & he was right. Britain has seen no benefit whatsoever as the present economic situation proves.
Thatcher described herself as a “conviction” politician, all very well if your “convictions” are right but hers weren’t & her failure to even contemplate compromise/negotiation (even within her own cabinet) is her biggest failing & one that, long term, has cost the country dear.
IMO like 
Or we could go with your theory that she was a commie sleeper agent 
What if we combine the two theories on the basis,as I said,of who gained/s from this,bearing in mind the make up of those coal imports according to the figures, not forgetting that the same thing happened throughout the manufacturing industry much of which wasn’t nationalised at all.The fact is,however you look at it,the whole thing,including what happened to US industry and unions,in the case of Reagan,resulted in a massive shift and transfer of wealth creating industry from west to east.The result being a type of global communist rule over the working class of a similar type,regardless of wether it’s Russian,Chinese,East European or Western workers.All of which seems to show that those ‘negotiations’,involving Thatcher and Reagan on the western side and Gorbachev and the Chinese leadership on the Eastern side were something more than just what the news media tried to make out.The only difference is that western workers have always been brighter than their Eastern counterparts which is why we’re having this discussion.
I still say that history and the facts suggest it was probably more a conspiracy,involving two commie sleepers and some ( loads of ) ‘business people’ and bankers in the west,who could see some cheap labour opportunities in those communist countries,than just a zb up involving one stupid British leader. 
All of which seems ironic when misguided naive union leaders and Labour Party politicians thought that socialism and communism was the way forward for the British working class when the efforts of the US unions and the US economy of the 1960’s proved that it was strong unions,working for and within a strong capitalist system,run on Fordist principles, that is/was the best way. 
seems to know what was best for British workers.As I’ve said the only figures that matter are those generally accepted pointers to how an economy is performing being economic growth and balance of payments and value of the currency against a currency like the Swiss Franc and we wouldn’t have got the figures we had in 1972 if no one was turning up for work every Monday including the miners.No surprise though that after joining the EU and after Thatcher’s election as leader those figures all went through the floor except for unemployment which went through the roof. 
