That depends on the cost when compared to keeping thousands on the dole

He say’s it’s coming out of all the rebates she secured from the E.U back in the day.

Perhaps there’s enough left to turn her ashes into a shimmering diamond, that can be mounted on the Coronation Crown.

Most mining was economical if granted a level playing field, Thatcher would NOT subsidise British coal, but refused to stop heavily subsidised coal in from other places. A lot of coal was shipped from Australia and the subsidies were so heavy that it was worth the while paying all the shipping costs to bring it over. How were British mines supposed to compete without a levelling off of subsidies.

I think the miners would have been happy to compete if a levy on imported coal were introduced, similar to what America does to protect it's own industries.

There's also the 3 million unemployed at the time Thatcher was in power as well. They never counted school leavers either as unemployed so there will have been a few thousand more there. At least she's with her friend General Pinochet now so they can have nice talks about what they did to their respectives peoples.

Jeez wept.

Tell us all then what your opinion is of Tony Blair and co who sanctioned a war with a lie and then sent hundreds of young men to their death. Also please say why the above despite being in office for as long as Thatcher never repealed a single one of her acts.

Or the first ever Labour Government led by Atlee who gladly sent thousands of Cossack and other ethnic Soviets to certain death in 1946 to appease there then hero Stalin.

How selective is you political bias.

Your grasp of history is as lax as your grasp of RL.

IIRC, there was also coal being brought in that was mined in Colombia (?) by children – which is another sort of subsidy.

Like we are doing right now with banks she de-regulated?

The cheap brown, sukphur-laden shoite that was imported from Australia, India and other places was only cheaper on a tonnage basis. There was absolutely no allowance for the higher calorific value of British coal. Aussie coal may have been cheaper per tonne but you had to burn more to achieve the same output

Im not a fan.

But Thatcher is judged on what she did. Not what Blair did.

You only bring up Blair because of you haven’t progressed from the school yard. You are still stuck in ‘may dads bigger than your dad territory’ and you can’t defend those things she did, the only thing you can do is try to mitigate by saying ‘well someone else did something else and that was bad too’. Its pretty childish, but probably the most cogent thing you have ever managed to articulate on here.

Your only argument is to pretend im some flag bearer for Labour and stick with pretending your dad is bigger than mine.

Thatcherism being awful, selfish, greedy ideology doesnt mean i support everything Labour have ever done.

Well actually yes!

However, there was no subsidising from the tax payer, as the overall business was making a small profit.

Therefore the big hitting collieries were subsidising the loss making ones, many people were in employment & the Government were getting lots of tax revenues.

The Government wanted rid of the loss makers so it would be a much more attractive proposition to a private buyer.

The 3 election wins is indisputable, however ...

In 1979 the conservatives got a swing of 8% which, with the multiplier effect of our FPTP electoral system, gave them an extra 62 seats from 43.9% of the vote.
In the 1983 election, the SDP/Lib Alliance polled 25% of the vote, splitting the left of centre vote, the Conservative share of the vote actually decreased to 42.4% but their number of seats soared, again due to the multiplier effect of FPTP.
In 1987, a miniscule 0.2% swing away from the conservatives lost them 21 seats (42.2% of the vote).

"Popular"? ... when 56.1%, 57.6% and 57.8% preferred someone other than Thatcher, I wouldn't call her popular.

Ah I wondered how long it would be before the bankers were brought into the argument. Surely there is some "Godwins law" equivalent for this?

I have no love for a completely unregulated system of banking. In fact from a personal view I would split the industry into investment and "traditional" banks, guarantee only the traditional banks and cut the rest free to fail or succeed.

However, there is one key difference here. The old nationalised industries (let's broaden it a bit) were, by and large, subsidised by the taxpayer. This does not make economic sense. If it was that easy, then the unemployment rates of all countries would be approaching zero as we effectively created jobs out of nothing.

The banks did abuse their position and the government had no option but to bail them out (unless you wanted to see ordinary peoples savings become worthless overnight, and the resulting knock on effect on confidence and the economy).

Yeah but you can prove anything with facts...

Sounds like you agree with Milord Elpers who says she was popular.
The stats say otherwise.