You realize you are talking about coal mines here correct?
If anything, Thatcher's move to get the government out of the coal business was prophetic in many more ways than she could have realized. The market for UK coal was non-existent: the resource was already dead to natural gas and oil.
The modernization strategies of Thatcher in the UK, Reagan in the US and even Mulroney in Canada were painful, but necessary requirements of countries that were trying to stay ahead of the curve.
No, I'm not talking about coal mines at all. I'm talking about oil. Read the thread. You mentioned coal mines, you keep referencing coal mines, incorrectly assuming that is what I was referring to in my comment, which I then clarified as being about oil. Your comment about mines though was wrong anyway. She didn't sell off coal mines. You're just wrong about that. She just shut them down, for a whole bunch of reasons. You appear so eager to argue the thread that you're not actually reading what's been said.
The UK's oil facilities are profitable. Ergo those jobs are secure.
The fact that the UK is a net importer of oil is irrelevant, given that this has more to do with high consumption than it does the industry itself.
One way or another the UK is going to pay for it's energy. The difference between the coal mines that Thatcher ditched and oil is that with the coal the UK was paying for that as well.
If anything, Thatcher's move to get the government out of the coal business was prophetic in many more ways than she could have realized. The market for UK coal was non-existent: the resource was already dead to natural gas and oil.
The modernization strategies of Thatcher in the UK, Reagan in the US and even Mulroney in Canada were painful, but necessary requirements of countries that were trying to stay ahead of the curve.