Margaret Thatcher: The Myth Explored.
83Elections
Margaret Thatcher was first elected in 1979 then again in 1983 and 1987 with what was variously described as a massive majority and a landslide.
But that description is only made possible by the vagaries of the British electoral system, that massive majority or landslide never consisted of more than 44% of the vote. That means that for every 44 people who voted for her, 56 did not. Some majority!
(We do not actually elect Prime Ministers in the UK. We elect a party and then they chose a Prime Minister, usually but not necessarily the leader of that party.)
The reason for this aberration is the electoral system in the UK which works fine when there are only two parties in contest but rather messes up when there are more leading to unfair representation. Not helped either by both major parties meddling with the boundaries between constituencies to give themselves the best advantage, though none have been as blatant as Conservative controlled Westminster Council who had a policy of moving likely Labour voters out of the constituency to strengthen the Conservative hold.
Interest Rates March 1979 to May 2010
Inflation
Great play is made on how she conquered inflation which was at 10% and falling when she came to power in 1979. By 1980 inflation was at nearly 22% and wasn’t back into single figures until 1982. Incidentally, when Thatcher left power in 1990 inflation stood at 10%.
In 1987 when inflation had fallen to 4.2% the UK still had the second highest inflation rate of the G7 countries.
Interest rates were used as a tool to control inflation but had the side effect of plunging the country into recession.
The Miners Strike
Much has already been written about the miners strike, it is not my intention to go over it again in great depth, just to explore some of the myths and spin.
The seeds of the miners strike of 1983/4 were sown during the Heath administration ten years previously when the miners forced Heath to an election which he lost.
In 1978, even before she had gained power, Thatcher was planning retribution. On gaining power efforts were concentrated on building up supplies of coal but it wasn’t until after the victory of 1983 that she felt confident to take on the miners.
The miners strike was not the result of a spontaneous decision by the miners at Cortonwood. It was carefully engineered by the tories to break the miners union and to destroy jobs and communities in the process.
There was an agreement in place to gradually close worked out pits. Workers being shed by voluntary redundancies and natural wastage. Thatchers government threw this agreement out.
The cost of policing the strike amounted to nearly £200 million.
The cost in terms of extra public spending and lost revenue was well over £2,000 million.
It was claimed that the mining industry was losing from £100 million to £300 million a year!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Scargill held the strike without a ballot. How was that possible? The strike was called in Yorkshire: Scargill was not there. When after consultation at mass pithead meetings the national conference was convened to discuss whether to call a national ballot, Arthur did not express a view. He was in the chair and in those days respected its objectivity. He did not have a vote and did not speak. Did anyone even ask anyone about this central allegation? Did they hell.
Scargill walked away from the negotiations and a deal in September 84. What was the deal? What was the stumbling block? What was the union’s view? They do not even ask, let along answer. Arthur tells it differently (though not on this programme, since he was not asked). A deal was in view - we virtually had the whole shooting match - but NCB chair Ian MacGregor went off and phoned Thatcher and when he came back everything agreed hitherto had been taken back."
From http://www.minersadvice.co.uk/reviews_class_war_and_damn_lies.htm
Who Isn't Working!
Employment
For one so disparaging of the unemployed Margaret Thatcher did more to increase their ranks than any other Prime Minister since the great Depression.
When she came to power in 1979 unemployment was around 0.9 million. It peaked, officially, at 3.3 million in 1984 and had fallen back to 1.6 million by December 1989.
Unofficially, peak unemployment was calculated at around 5 million.
Many changes were made to the unemployment calculations to reduce the numbers. These included putting many of the unemployed on to long term sickness benefits, a move which still blights us to this day.
There was also juggling of the eligibility dates for unemployment meaning that many short term unemployed were not counted at all.
The destruction of our manufacturing base meant heavy and permanent unemployment, not everybody is cut out to go and work in an office and look good in a suit!
Industry
British industry was crippled by a lack of investment, old Victorian machinery went hand in hand with Victorian management practices.
The easiest way to overcome this hurdle whilst still holding on to their money was to blame the unions for stifling development. Whilst this was undoubtedly true in a few cases, as a general rule it wasn’t.
What union would insist on a new factory having old out dated machinery installed even before production had begun? What union would insist on machines being run without safety guards, unless it was to meet unrealistic production goals set by management.
With the advent of North Sea oil Britain had a unique opportunity to update its outmoded industrial infrastructure but instead frittered away revenue of £12 billion a year on tax cuts. Meanwhile the balance of payments slipped further into deficit. Indeed our trade surplus of £2,500 million in 1982 had turned into a deficit of £2,400 million by 1983! And has stayed in deficit ever since.
Taxation
For a party who claimed at the time to be the party of low taxation the truth is somewhat different.
For most of the 1980s the tax take was actually higher than it had been in 1979 when tax as a percentage of GDP was 38 but rapidly rose to 43% of GDP.
Thatcher’s first action within a month of gaining power was to almost double Value Added Tax from 8% to 15%, a figure that it has never gone below since.
Although she did cut personal taxes, the top rate of tax from 83% to 40%, the lower though from 33% to 25%. There was a massive and divisive disparity between the rich and the poor the top rate being more than halved whilst the lowest rate cut by less than a quarter.
Privatisation
Perhaps the biggest blow dealt to the UK was the privatisation of public utilities.
With the rapid rise in the profit element of public services we saw a rapid rise in the number suffering fuel poverty, defined as fuel costs exceeding 10% of income.
Public transport ceased to serve the public as its primary function, instead serving the share holders first.
British Telecom is often touted as the great privatisation success story, but was it? Before privatisation it was forced by the government to keep its prices artificially high to enable private companies to compete. After privatisation it became much more efficient but not as a result of privatisation. Rather it was the fruition of many years of research and development whilst still a state owned company.
Publicly owned companies were sold off at great expense and at well below market value, nominally to the people who already owned them and who then rapidly sold on their shares to private corporations for a fast profit.
British Gas was sold off at £600 million below valuation.
Here are a few other companies and their losses (£m)
- British Aerospace 251
- Cable & Wireless 291
- Amersham International 161
- Britoil 158
- Associated British Ports 36
- Cable & Wireless (2nd tranche) 112
- Associated British Ports (2nd tranche) 5
- Jaguar 25
- British Telecom 1295
That is a loss just on those companies of £2,334 million! (Not including British Gas) £128 million was paid in fees for the privatisation of British Telecom alone!
More on Privatisation.
In a recent report (February 2012) it is stated that Britain's railways are the worst in Europe for fares, efficiency and comfort.
The frequency of trains was the only area in which the UK performed better than France, Germany, Spain and Italy said the report.
"In terms of bang for buck, not only does the UK come bottom of the index of outcomes but it also spends a large amount of money to achieve this woeful result" This puts it bottom of the value for money league.
Government
Thatcher, like many others talked of government having too much power and how the power should be devolved back to the people.
So what did she do? She stripped local authorities of their powers and gave them to central government.
Margaret Thatcher was the best thing to happen to the UK
See results without votingThe Legacy
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his sole.
We are undoubtedly a more financially prosperous country than we were in the 1970s but at what cost? Behind the glamour and the glitz there is a second Britain where those who have worked hard for their whole lives but never earned enough to save have to chose between eating and keeping warm. Where kids with no hope deal drugs to try to get involved in the must have culture, where whole generations of families do not know what it is to work., not through lack of will as some would have you believe but through lack of opportunity.
The North South divide is greater than ever, in the home counties there is plenty of work and very little sign of want but move North and see a totally different scene. Gone are the steel works and the coal mines, gone the heavy engineering works where men toiled to make Britain great, gone even are many towns and villages no longer needed for a work force that is no longer needed
 | Amazon Price: $2.06 List Price: $16.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $13.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $73.75 |
 | Amazon Price: $30.20 List Price: $29.95 |
Conclusion
Whilst it is not possible in a work such as this, to cover every aspect of Thatcher’s decimation of the country I have tried to give a broad example and tried to do this as impartially as possible (I am from the North of England!).
My sources include, not in any particular order;-
Breaking the Nation ISBN 0745300200
The Office of National Statistics website
The website of the NUM
The House of Commons Library
The Guardian Newspaper
To mention but a few.
CommentsLoading...
Indeed Josak, she had an election to win. Before the Falklands she was on a dead cert to lose.
I disagree, Thatcher sent our Task Force to retake the Falkland Islands back, after they were unlawfully taken by a country with no legal rights to them.
It is not important whether she was losing an election or not, when she needed too she stood up and made a difficult decision.
Through her actions she reminded the world, that we may be small, but we will protect what is ours.
Josak you have to look at it this way, you fought on the side of a much bigger country, who tried to take by force, a pointless piece of land populated by British citizens, If you guys thought it was pointless, then why did you invade it?
I hold no grudge against the Argentine people, but Thatcher responded to a situation caused by someone else, she did not create the Falklands War.
Well there are a couple of things to say in reply 1st my own involvement was not voluntary, I was doing my compulsory service and was sent to the Falklands as a conscript. 2nd I dont believe in colonialism its an expired system, the idea that England should own an Island just off the Argentine coast is rather foolish, its half the world away from England. 3rd I hold no grudge against the English either, only the leaders who condemned so many to death for nothing not only the English one but our own murderous dictators. 4th the Falklands were legally granted to the Argnetine states under the treaty of tordesillas before england was even an international power. 5th As for a much bigger country Argentina at the time had barely more than 30 million citizens, how many resided in the UK at the time? 6th Not many people know that the Falklands were twice used as an invasion base by England on the Argentine states it seems foolish to me to leave them there when that has allready ocurred twice. 7th the fallands were illegally taken from Argentina by force long before the war (I will get the exact dates for this for you in a minute)
The facts remain, irrespective of any dates, the Falkland islands belong to Britain.
Argentina tried to take them by force.
The point i was trying to make is this,
Thatcher did not create or initiate the Falklands war, she merely responded to it.
I didn't think it was fair to use it as a measure of her abilities as a Prime Minister.
You have to have lived through the Falklands war in the UK before you begin to realise what an obscene endeavour it was.
A handful of scrap metal merchants landed on an Island and we go to war to defend it!
At what cost to life, both British and Argentinian.
Had they left it another couple of years we would not have had enough navy left to defend a boating lake in a municipal park!
Dadibobs, maybe not fair to use it exclusively as a measure of her abilities, but pretty germane to the discussion.
On 3 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the brig-sloop HMS Clio, arrived at Vernet's settlement at Port Louis to request that the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate be replaced with the British one, and for the administration to leave the islands. While Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious, particularly as a large number of his crew were British mercenaries who were unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Such a situation was not unusual in the newly independent states in Latin America, where land forces were strong, but navies were frequently quite undermanned. As such he protested verbally, but departed without a fight on 5 January. As you can see the islands were illegally seized through the use of force by the british and the Argentine (River Plate States) flag was replaced, therefore no it was not an illegal invasion. Your comment does not mean a thing The Falkland Islands were rightfully Argentine (logically too if you look at a map) when they were retaken the right thing to do would have been to withdraw and accept the reasonable conclusion, but instead the war was begun for political profit which does wheigh on her performance as primeminister since she condemned so many to death so that she could win her next election, nothing else.
Obscene endeavor, we went to war to retake something taken from us, to free civilians taken by force.
I see nothing obscene about defending our own people.
Josak, Argentina caused the war, you invaded British land.
Daddibobs, I remind you, the invading army were a bunch of scrap metal dealers.
I understand that Argentina think they have a claim to 'The Malvinas', the point i was trying to make was the use of the war. I didn't particularly like Thatcher myself, but it seems like yet another opportunity to have a pop at us for Colonialism etc. You questioned Thatcher, the Falklands were not her fault, everything else in your hub i agree with.
But when she needed too she defended our nation, that must be worth some credit.
OK, I'll give her credit for that,how much do you think would be appropriate? Would it outweigh all the lives lost?
How many people either now or then could actually point to the Falklands on a map?
irrelevent john, would the USA give Manhattan to anyone who invaded it?, would Japan give her main iskand away without a fight?
As A Britisher I say we were murderers ! Not our land.
jandee
The Falklands are hardly comparable with Manhattan. One is a heavily populated place on the mainland, the other is sparsely populated and many thousands of miles away with far more connections with Argentina than with the UK.
I would also question her desire to defend a small piece of real estate many thousands of miles away and sparsely inhabited and her callous disregard for people living in the UK.
Her actions in the UK are one issue, her actions concerning the Falkland islands are another.
Irrespective of where in the world our land is, it is our land. British citizens live there, and have for a long time.
When a foreign country invades, it is our duty, as citizens of the UK to defend our people and land.
Argentina was the aggressor, anyone who cannot see this is blind to the facts.
If Argentina had not invaded the Falkland islands, no one would have been killed, period.
You would expect the same kind of support and response had it been you.
Her desire was mirrored by the British people.
Yes the desire for colonial power, people respended the same way when India wanted its independence, it doesent make it right, colonialism is a sick expired system nd England had no claim to the Isalnd which had been forcibly illegally taken earlier, war to prevent land from being returned to its rightfull owners is unjust, period.
Many changes were made to the unemployment calculations to reduce the numbers. These included putting many of the unemployed on to long term sickness benefits, a move which still blights us to this day
If my memory serves me correctly, John, the Thatcher government had a number of ways, which were particularly cruel, to deny or withdraw unemployment benefits. One such example would be the withdrawal of housing benefit for the under 25 (males) where, apparently, it was acceptable for them to sleep on the streets. In addition, a homeless man(at that time) would have his unemployment benefit withdrawn because he did not have a fixed address. Although I do not have the figures to hand, I believe a significant number of men between the ages of 18 and 25 were kicked off benefits in this way.(particularly in the north)
I also recall when the CSA were established. Many fathers who already paid maintenance for their children were asked to pay outrageous sums of money,which they simply could not afford. In light of this, (those who did not commit or attempt suicide, remember that?) would resign from their jobs as they simply could not afford the sums being taken from their wage. Only to then find that they could not claim benefits either.
The Falklands conflict was, without doubt, engineered. The conflict helped Thatcher earn some political capital, which incidentally, she desperately needed. Images of the iron lady in a tank stirred the 'Nationalist' element and gave her some kudos. I actually find it staggering, that today, there are still people who cannot see that this was the case.
)
It was actually the circumstances you describe - under 25, no housing benefit and therefore no unemployment benefit that caused my friend to kill himself.
I think the belief was that everybody under the age of 25 had living parents who would give them shelter. Even when they did, it was often the case where the parents were unemployed too and no no spare income to carry the weight.
As I say John, the Thatcher 'regime' had some particularly cruel ways of crunching the numbers.
Yes, quick to defend the Falklands but showing utter contempt for those closer to home.
I had a number of friends in the teaching profession at the time. They quickly got fed up with all the abuse that she handed out to teachers and not one remained in the profession. They were almost all good teachers as well.
I shiver when I think of the youngsters having left school and colleges had no income of their own,had to be in the control of their parents,absurd at that age ! My son and dozens of his friends after finishing their degrees at a top university in london had, in order to find work, actually had to go to Japan. How many people expect to not have the pleasure of seeing their son for many,many years ? Later we have the spectacle of 'gun-runners'?? ,
Jandee
Your sons and his friends were the lucky ones.
Imagine being stuck without that opportunity and with out even the prospect of a dead end job!
So many lives were thrown away to make the few even richer than they already were.
Josak, look to the origins of every single hispanic person on your continent, then preach to me of who it belongs to.
You claim the Falkland islands are rightfully yours, therefore you must agree that the whole southern half of the American continent belongs to the indigenous peoples, who were wiped out and hunted down by the Spanish conquistadors?
At which point to you accept that Britain is not the only country who was involved in expanding her borders, your whole country is the direct descendant of Spanish imperialism.
Britain is not to blame for everything that has gone wrong.
Fact the Falklands war was unnecassary.
Fact the Falklands war was caused by Argentina.
Fact the Spanish colonised the south America's.
Fact thatcher was indeed a crap Prime Minister.
Daddibobs, with due respect, I think we're wandering off the topic here.
The Falklands is probably worth a hub of its own but is rather stretching the purpose of this hub which is to expose the mythology that surrounds Thatcher and not to discuss Argentinian or UK imperialism.
I agree, this is what i have said a number if times.
I just felt i had to respond to comments made about our imperialistic past and how Thatcher caused a war.
I apologise for the way your brilliant hub's comment have travelled.
Voted up lol.
Ach, no apologies needed Daddibobs, done it myself often enough :)
John I know what you mean about him and friends being the lucky ones and it's true as they all returned about ten years later in credit but! Was I lucky ? The Boy went and the Man returned! I well blame Thatcher for that !!
jandee
I'm sorry, I wasn't implying that it was good for anybody,just that it was worse for some.
A Boy who lived in my road in the 80s,is now sleeping in the open in Liverpool Docks. He lost his father after the Father was 'laid off.'The company got rid of him just in time as he shortly died of cancer,his mother became dependant on drink then the house went. I still see, in my ,mind this boy when he was an infant playing happily on his three wheeler bike......take care all ??
Unfortunately Jandee,stories like that are all too familiar on the streets, not so well known to those who get their version of events from the news media though.
Yes John, in the forums I often comment about our citizens who cry war when the 'human rights' of those in the middle east are ignored. My comment is always the same, if it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny. All the war mongerers in this country should look a bit closer to home if they want to see 'local' breeches of human rights. Do people in this country still honestly believe that Governments which would allow people to live on the streets, not have enough money to feed their own families or to be treated promptly for cancer because of their postcode, honestly care about the rights of those in Lybia or Egypt when this country had been so complicit for so long in that nations suffering. They need to look again. And think.
Aye Hollie, I have to laugh (wryly) when people tell me how authoritarian and totalitarian the left is and wasn't Thatcher magnificent!
Are they all blinkered that they can't see how authoritarian and totalitarian she was?
John, I would like to thank you deeply for putting all this together. I was just looking online to do some research on Margaret Thatcher before writing my film review on "The Iron Lady", and this hub certainly helps me out a lot. I hope you don't mind if I choose to link this one to my review, as I think some of my own readers would love to read this after reading my review of the movie. Anyway, thanks for the heads up.
Hi Stevennix, please do link. And thanks for the comment.
Informative. Thatcher was clearly a fake conservative. There's deregulation and austerity, but there is a way to do it without holding the country to ransom. And I'm certain the backlash was intended, leading us to a crippling, big-spending, regulation-heavy, war-mongering Labour government. Playing both sides off one another, driving us deeper into Hell...
But was she a fake or just an open conservative? And don't forget Tony Blair's admiration for Thatcher and his vow to carry on with her policies.
Yes, and also Cameron's declaration that he is the son of Bliar not Brown.
I think the Falklands war was a really big mistake on the part of England as a whole and Ms. Thatcher. We've (The US) have done something similar in other places, like, need I say it, Vietnam. We live in a glass house here; we can't throw stones.
I don't think Ms. Thatcher's administration was good for the economy on the whole; however, her mission was to re-establish status quo; she was a heavily Conservative candidate who wanted to maintain the class divisions. We also have something like that with Bush and the Republicans. Once again--glass house.
I see a pattern here. Don't you?
Well of course. Party politics is like pro-wrestling. The differences between each other are just for the crowd.
Thatcher is a fake conservative in her war games and benefits for business.
Paradise, you see the pattern a lot clearer than many of my fellow countrymen did.
Thanks.
But Innersmiff, isn't that what the conservatives have always been about? War games and benefits for business?
and not to forget fascism!!
Benefits for business is more akin to Fascism/Corporatism than true Conservatism/Free Market Capitalism. Benefits and tax breaks should be flat and across the board for the system to be fair.
There's a world of difference between "should be" and "are".
A good start John.
The Poll Tax also had the effect that many young people did not register to vote so they had no official existence at any address. This was to dodge the poll tax. They had trouble getting jobs and credit and had to stay off the electoral rioll for years to avoid their arrears catching up with them.
And considering that many young people do not vote conservative . . .
We in Scotland hated Maggie Thatcher and everything she did to us, but sadly New Labour and Tory Blair brought us more of the same. Maybe this is why Scotland is at last considering independence? There are no socialists left in English politics.
Yes, I think she decided that as you were so far away you didn't matter, oh, and you were all socialists to boot!
One of her objections to independence for Scotland was if you had gone down that route and succeeded you would have been an extremely successful socialist economy.
Excellent Hub John;
On a personal note, the only member of my family to go to prison was my son, he did 10 days in Swansea jail for refusing to pay the poll tax. I am very proud of my boy and to this day there are people who will shake his hand for what he did. I was fined for refusing to pay my television license when Maggie reneged on her promise to create a Welsh language TV channel. Though the bench was divided on whether or not to acquit.
As for the Malvinas; All the signs were that when Galtieri saw that the British were preparing the task force and were serious, he was willing to compromise. So they sank the Belgrano. half of the Argentine casualties were in that one act. The ship was sailing away from the islands and was outside the "Exclusion zone" it made war inevitable and Maggie's position secure.
The 80's, for good or ill, will always be known as "The Thatcher decade" her legacy is one of pain, and anger. Unfortunately our friends in other parts of the world only get the propaganda, not the reality of life under, what the conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath called;
"The unacceptable face of capitalism"
Its hard to always isolate the true causes of economic conditions because there are so many factors that come into play. Sometimes the effects of government intrusion into the private sector have an appearance of initial success and it takes some time to feel its deficiencies.
Being a conservative and an admirer of Margaret Thatcher, I have a different take on this subject.
From my understanding Britain went from being a world power in ww2 to an second rate European nation 20 years later. From my understanding, Britain was the first nation with the guts to declare war on the nazi's in Germany. They withstood overwhelming odds to beat back the Nazi's with the Royal air force.
So what happened? After Winston Churchill revived British power to victory in WW2, the British nation elects labor party socialists. Under socialist leadership, the government directly and indirectly controls almost the entire private sector and brings the nation to bankruptcy, where even the telephone systems bearly worked.
Thatcher certainly had her work cut out trying to undo the damage of 35 years of government mismangement of the private sector. So under the circumstances, I believe she made remarkable progress.
Your comment about the telephone system illustrates my point well. The telephone system didn't work at its best because it was still a system designed for and only capable of coping with very low levels of traffic. The fact that many years of research and development only began to bear fruit after privatisation was nothing to do with that privatisation.
Unfortunately the mismanagement of the private sector was down to the managers employed by the private sector.
I hardly think that giving away either the private sector or the public sector was a very effective tool as there is now no money left for tax breaks for the wealthy and no money left to keep the country going.
I'd be interested to hear why you think the great hike in interest and inflation and the massive unemployment were actually good for the country.
You make some interesting points, perhaps the issue isn't that black and white. I'll need to do a little digging to return an informed response. Thanx
wba108 - One of the reasons Labour did so well was that everyone now had direct experience of good government planning and organisation which compared favourably with experiences under capitalism in the 1930s. Socialism works! People did not want to return to the 1930s.
I'll be straight forward and admit I know next to nothing about British policies and politics, so I will abstain from much of this discussion.
I will say, as an informed American, that I have often felt that England should allow independence to Northern Ireland and Scotland alike and give the Faulklands back to Argentina. To be fair, I think the U.S.A should pull out of Hawaii.
As a side note, Former British Defense Minister, Denis Healey, made a statement that I thought was both profound and extraordinary:
"World events do not occur by accident. They are made to happen, whether it is to do with national issues or commerce; and most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings."
Indeed. And so it goes.
Best wishes - L.R.
Lady Margaret Thatcher was voted by the British people in 2008 to have been the best Prime Minister since the Second World War by a three to one margin over the second place finisher. In other words, she still wins by a landslide.
What socialists want is what they have always wanted: to destroy democracy and rule by force. You wish three landslide wins in a row had been overruled by some union committee. Scargill was trying to topple an elected government and plunge Britain into chaos with an illegal strike.
Lady Margaret Thatcher was voted the 5th most admired woman in the world of the 20th Century, behind only Mother Theresa, Helen Keller, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.
Before Lady Margaret Thatcher rescued Britain from total collapse, labor unions had a stranglehold on the economy and society. Unions blocked any new technologies. Unions blocked any downsizing of the labor force of old industries in terminal decline. Many labor union leaders were in fact quietly communists, loyal to the Soviet Union, determined to destroy Britain.
In 1979 alone, labor strikes resulted in thirty million lost work days. The demands of labor unions were for an immediate, incredible, and insane increase in wages of 15 to 25 percent.
Yes, after she came to power unemployment rose. Millions of workers were on strike and if you are on strike you are unemployed.
But that is not the worst of it. 1,000,000 non-union workers permanently lost their jobs that were connected to industries that were effectively shut down by strikes. That is why the unemployment.
The decline of labor union power revitalized many industries because no longer did people merely pretend to work. Real productivity per worker rose during the Thatcher years at a higher rate than any other European country. The British economy as a whole grew by 4 percent per year during the 1980s—a post-WWII record.
The year before it was privatized by Margaret Thatcher, British Steel set an all-time record for the one year loss of money by any entity in world history outside the Soviet Union: Five Hundred Million Pounds. Within seven years, British Steel had the highest productivity rates in Europe and had become the most profitable steel company on Planet Earth. British Airways experienced a similar turnaround.
Because Margaret Thatcher cut tax rates nearly in half, Britain ran big budget surpluses in the 1980s and retired 20 percent of its national debt as tax revenues actually went up! She had restored self-confidence and pride to her nation.
And to top it all off, Lady Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, was instrumental in bringing down the Iron Curtain—freeing hundreds of millions of human beings from literal slavery under socialism.
James, thanks for your comments.
Thatcher was voted by some of the people to have been the best PM. As I mentioned elsewhere, not I nor millions of other people were asked our opinion.
Again, how do you describe a minority as a landslide? She never achieved 50% of the vote. More people voted against her than for her.
It is naive to say that socialists wanted to destroy democracy and rule by force, don't you realise that you are describing Thatcher? She did more to destroy democracy in the UK and rule by force than any other British government of any side ever did.
She turned the police force into a paramilitary force, no longer protecting the man on the street but instead defending big business from the man on the street.
Do you not realise that there were actually more trade union members in the UK than Thatcher supporters?
I don't know where you got the idea that unions blocked new technology and what industries were in total decline? The motor industry, the coal industry, telecoms, computers, tell me what?
It is crazy to suggest that all those who lost their jobs as a result of Thatchers policies did so because the unions were on strike and made them unemployed, crazy!
She deliberately set out to destroy the working class, she'd rather the nation paid to keep them out of work than have them in a position where they could harm her.
We had no more than a handful of militant trade unions,most of them were quietly centre of the road and unheard of beyond their membership.
Thatcher cut tax rates in half for the highest paid, she hardly reduced them at all for the common man and she did this with revenue from north sea oil. The percentage of GDP that we paid in tax was actually higher than we paid under the last Labour Government.
She also nearly doubled VAT, from 8% to 15% and that is a tax that weighs more heavily on the lower paid.
Our balance of payments went in to the negative for the first time in peace time history and are still there to this day.
This isn't a socialist vs capitalist argument, there are plenty on the right who still shudder at the mention of her name.
Oh, and don't forget, the Soviet Union was not socialist.
James, experience over rides reading, read as much as you like and you will never get the full flavour of Thatchers Britain, not the millions living in poverty, the lost hope and aspirations, the sky rocketing crime figures, no right wing book is ever going to tell you about them.
You know James, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that you did not read my hub at all, just used the comments to hang another anti-socialist rant on!
No comment on the billions raised from the sale of things that we already owned and how that money was used to selectively cut taxes for the all ready wealthy whilst leaving the less well off, well, less well off!
No comment on the loss of foreign markets whilst making us dependent on foreign goods.
Really no comment on anything at all apart from how wonderful Thatcher was! Oh, and the usual dishing up of the media lies.
IzzyM that will be terrible if that happens ! Without the 'Scottish left' we will be doomed for ever with these parasites. Mustn't lose hope ! Success may just be around the corner !!
jandee
I did read your article, John, every word. You made some good points there. No government is going to be perfect. You pointed out the negatives very well. I just sought to supply some balance. Thank you.
And your idea of balance is to provide more right wing delusion?
For instance you point out that Britain ran big budget surpluses in the 80s but totally ignore the reasons which included massive one off revenue from the sale of state owned assets and the enormous revenue from North Sea Oil!
Again a one off and unrepeatable feat and one that is still burdening us now.
John do you ever listen to Roger Philips (a manc)on radio merseyside. A phone-in programme. Today a reader phoned in re. minimum wage ,he had gone for a mundane job to the local 'Agency' and also there were 10 eastern europeans it seems that as there were so many of them ,shared transport, shared accomodation,willing to take well below minimun wage they all got the job but not him. He was realy nice about it ,no bitterness but was worried if it was his fault.sorry if it's off the point,
jandee
Hm, I thought the minimum wage applied to all. I know a lot of the gang masters use illegal immigrants and pay well under the odds but an Agency!
The Common Market was always a capitalist concept.
John,
Trust me, my nineteen year old son has been working, until recently, for 30 pounds a week with a "training provider" it was the only opportunity he had to complete his training. That, or the dole.
Thatcher is one of the truly evil people in this world. I think she is one of the most loathed politicians in many parts of the UK. I know many people who are planning parties to celebrate when she moves on to the "Upper House" or "Lower House" of the other world.
Here in Wales, she is still despised with a living, burning passion. Most people consider her to be primarily responsible for the current poverty and neglect experienced by many parts of Wales, especially the top ends of the Rhondda valleys, where I moved to live four years ago.
My ex mother in law, the widow of a Yorkshire miner, is now well into her 80s and is determined not to die before Thatcher so she can at least metaphorically dance on her grave.
Thanks for the comment WriteAngled.
They even know how evil she is on hubpage staff otherwise they wouldn't forbid me to publish my hub, with all the political comments on it from British Citizens, about her and her cronies/rather she was the crony who did all the dirty work
for the 'Boss'class who are forever parasites on the backs of the Workers!
best from jandee
when was this article done?
Hi Rukz, earlier this year.
Josak Level 6 Commenter 3 months ago
Only fools believe she was any good at all, then again I fought in the Falklands with the Argentine military so my views may be a little biased, having seen so many people die for a pointless piece of land which England had no sane claim to, in my opinion she only went to war for political advantage.