Aye, and we'll keep unemployment high enough to make you grateful.

Did it remind you of how much successive governments had, for a decade or so, been taking money out of these industries and utilities and not re-investing it in them?

And did it discuss how 'selling off the family silver' not only left the country pretty much without any internal control, over what it needs to power it, and domestic customers in particular have been able to watch their bills spiral?

Even the forums on the [iTelegraph[/i have, over the last year or so, seen commentators grumbling that perhaps privatisation was not all that it was cracked up to be.

And indeed, the fact that we (the taxpayer) still subsidises transport, for instance, is an indicator as to exactly who has benefited from privatisation.

How can you cremate someone who is already burning in hell. I hope my dad, the old pit man, is having a sly smile where ever he is .

There are a number of people who agree with you about those industries and, to be fair, they have a point.
But their point is blunted when the same people start moaning that the unemployed should be made to work for their dole.
Inconsistency is so easy.

And yet the fundamental principle of Thatcherism was that EVERYONE would have the chance of doing well.

Time was when in order to get a job in the City you had to be public school educated and called Smithers Ponsonby-Smyth.
After the Big Bang you could get the same job being called Alf Muck.

Traditional Labour had a vested interest in keeping a large "working class", for wont of a better word, "down".
Tradtional Tory had a vested interest in keeping a large "working class", for wont of a better word, "down".

Thatcher offered the opportunity to everyone.

You can argue with her methods, and the alternatives, but you cannot deny this.

There is an argument for nationalisation of certain natural monopolies. The problem is that employees in a monopoly, state owned or private, tend to fall behind in the productivity stakes.

For any company this isn't an issue for non stakeholders. The difference is that for a public company those stakeholders are the taxpayers.

And yet the irony is that, in the past 30 years, social mobility has decreased.

How come the most efficient UK train company is the state-owned East Coast ?

Yes, I can.

But first, where do you get the notion that traditional Labour had a vested interest in keeping a large "working class" down and how did it do so?

Some industries are just not profitable without state subsidy. The railways being a case in point. Taxpayers subsidise the profits of Virgin Trains for example. If there are any advantages to privatisation it must be cheaper cost to the taxpayer. I see the opposite here.

Others such as Gas and Electricity are only profitable due to ever increasing bills for the consumer. Remember a private companies first duty is to its shareholders and we see the results with the power companies with less well off people suffering fuel poverty in 2013.

Some industries are natural monopolies and when you have a monopoly its better for the state to run it.

The idea mentioned elsewhere that there is some intrinsic problem once people are employed in such organisations is complete bunkum. The East Coast main line has been run by the state for over three years and is efficient. Network Rail itself is state run after having to be re-nationalised. The fact the most costly health provision in the world in the USA is private shows that is another area where privatise everything is not appropriate.



Was exiting the ERM mentioned under Lamont? I remember interests rates at that level and higher due to all that.



She was battling for the rights of her members and if you look into this in any detail you will find she was opposed by many local union leaders as she tried to end the casual labour that dominated the industry because getting them all unionised would have undermined the local leaders influence and position. She wasn't opposed to progress but was batting on a losing wicket because to a large extent local leaders felt they could continue to hold papers to ransom (by preventing them going to print). Murdoch saw that as the opportunity he needed to undermine Dean. It wasn't unions (ad Dean's level) interfering in progress but very old fashioned local chapel leaders who wanted to retain their influence who couldn't see what was coming that were the problem. They wanted to carry on with the way things were as art of an almost feudal system. Dean recognised this but was hamstrung from the start. There is a lot of stuff on the net about this dispute and it makes interesting reading.



And with our triple A rating gone and no manufacturing industry in comparison to the likes to Germany and France we aren't now? I certainly feel we have been dumped on from a very great height and when we see things like the Aussie dollar surge and make it prohibitive for us to travel there as opposed to the other way around we really are in a mess.



Nigel Lawson should have been shot for selling off BNOC.

ok, it's from wikipedia, so no doubt you have your reliable sources to back up your claims.

German GDP by sector Agri 1% Ind 28.5% Services 70.5%
French GDP by sector Agri 2% Ind 19.0% Services 79.0%
UK GDP by sector Agri 1% Ind 21.5% Services 77.5%