What is very conveniently overlooked when discussing changes that occurred in society during the Thatcher years is that Britain does not operate in isolation. Many changes were occurring throughout the world in terms of economic advances that placed britain's manufacturing and extractive industries in a non competitive position and as a result they lost money. Things had to change to remain competitive. Scargill was a prime example of a person blind to reality. His stupidity forced the government to take on the unions head on. The government rules, not the unions. They lost and a very good thing that they did. With the loss of the coal industry the reduction of death and injury in that sphere is also conveniently overlooked. Also the reality is that coalmining had been steadily declining since at least 1900.
In essence Thatcher presided over a decline that was beyond her powers to reverse, rather like Canute telling the Atlantic to back off.. What she did have control of was the ability to try to tackle theinevitable changes that would occur in the working population.
I wonder what state the country would be in had labour presided over such fundamental changes to the country? It always seems to be coalmining held up as a shining example of Thatchers destructive legacy. Any fool can see this simply cannot be supported by the facts.
Also Agriculture also had a huge decline in numbers, over a longer time frame. Do I hear any bleating about the hard done by "horny handed sons of the soil"?
No I did not think so. It does not fit the retarded lefty narrative too well, does it? They all have fulltime jobs in Agriculture-cherry picking.