What exactly did Thatcher do?

[urbophile]

not sure she was prejudiced against under 30 year old bus users

Perhaps not against under 30s. But she did say that anyone over 30 using a bus was a failure, or words to that effect.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people still yearn for the mines up here in the NE most of whom wouldn’t survive five minutes working in one. There wouldn’t be 4G down there for a start.

Of course coal-mining was a filthy industry and destroyed both peoples' lives and the environment. But that wasn't why Thatcher fought the miners. A compassionate government with vision (not that we have ever had such) would have implemented a planned process of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and developing new industries in the former mining communities. Instead they were just left to rot.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Mrs Thatcher brought in the politics of bile and spite.

The politics of bile and spite existed long before Mrs. Thatcher was around.

A nasty, vindictive woman who poured scorn and hatred on the poor, low paid, sick and elderly.

No she didn't. She made it clear that she believed people should try to work and earn a living for themselves as much as they were able with the State only there as a last resort, rather than people looking by default for the State to support them as the first resort. But I do not remember her ever pouring scorn and hatred on such people. (Unlike much of the left who made no secret of their scorn and hatred for Mrs. Thatcher )

she went out of her way, quite deliberately, to destroy many industries.

I'm pretty sure she didn't do that either. She expected industries to stand on their own feet and make a profit, and was willing to see industries disappear if it turned out that they were unable to do so - presumably on the basis that (she believed) an industry that can only survive by being given subsidies is probably doing more harm than good [1], but that isn't quite the same thing as deliberately destroying industries.

[1] And you could argue she was mistaken in that belief to the extent that some industries (such as rail) do social good or help the wider economy in ways that aren't captured by their profit-and-loss balance sheet.

 

[Ianigsy]

Whenever the school milk gets mentioned, I can’t help thinking about my primary school in the late 1970s. In summer, the milk would have been delivered by the same milkman who delivered to nearby streets and would have been on his float for several hours by the time he dropped it off at school. Lovely warm, smelly, separated full fat milk- it’s amazing I can drink milk now, really!

But I suppose it still resonates because it’s a symbol of how Britain in the 1970s was still trying to pretend that the last thirty years hadn’t happened and it was still feasible for the state to keep inefficient industries going purely to keep people in work. I think Thatcher exchanged a gentle decline for a short sharp shock but assumed that everything would sort itself out for those who wanted to make something of themselves.

The disturbing aspect for me is adding the moral element to the political argument- that hard working virtuous people will always prosper and if you fail, it’s because of your own shortcomings.

 

[Yew]

The Falklands War changed everything for Thatcher - pre-the Argentine invasion she was the least popular prime minister in polling history and would either have had to reverse some of her policies or would have lost the next general election.

The same war that happened due to her large defence cuts? If half the Navy hadn't just been sent to the scrapyard, then there wouldn't have been a Falklands war.

I'm pretty sure she didn't do that either. She expected industries to stand on their own feet and make a profit, and was willing to see industries disappear if it turned out that they were unable to do so - presumably on the basis that (she believed) an industry that can only survive by being given subsidies is probably doing more harm than good [1], but that isn't quite the same thing as deliberately destroying industries.

If you want to make industries profitable, you invest in them and give them space to make improvements, as opposed to selling them off to the highest party-donor.

 

[JamesT]

Perhaps not against under 30s. But she did say that anyone over 30 using a bus was a failure, or words to that effect.

She probably didn’t: https://fullfact.org/news/margaret-thatcher-bus/

We can’t prove whether she did or didn’t say it, but she definitely didn’t coin the phrase.

Of course coal-mining was a filthy industry and destroyed both peoples' lives and the environment. But that wasn't why Thatcher fought the miners. A compassionate government with vision (not that we have ever had such) would have implemented a planned process of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and developing new industries in the former mining communities. Instead they were just left to rot.

Mines had been closing long before Thatcher. More closed under Wilson, did the Labour government of the day provide this support?
It also takes two to tango. If Scargill hadn’t demanded that no pit should close on economic grounds, perhaps the government could have negotiated a softer landing.

 

[Thirteen]

I think to understand the main things Thatcher was trying to (and did) do, you need to understand the situation when she came to power. Life and the economy was very different to today: Vast swathes of industry were nationalized: Steel production, almost all public transport, even some car making, coal mining (which was our main source of electricity at the time) as well as electricity generation, etc. Much of this was perceived (IMO, correctly) as being very inefficient, in part because there was no competition: For example the Post Office (who controlled telephones at the time) could make phones as expensive as they wished and be as slow as they wished to deliver them because on the whole you simply weren't able (allowed?) to use any other company to get your phone connected. The highest effective income tax rate was 98%, which meant that if you earned more than a certain income, you invariably either stopped working or moved abroad if you wanted to carry on earning - because any more that you earned in the UK would be almost completely taken away by the Government. Trade Union law gave the Unions immense power - and they used it. Strikes were commonplace, often over the most trivial reasons. It was considered perfectly normal for striking workers to seek to physically prevent or intimidate into not working anyone at their workplace who didn't want to strike - or even to travel to unrelated workplaces to try to prevent from working people at other companies who had no dispute with their employers! (So-called secondary picketing). Restrictive practices in many industries abounded - whereby the trade unions agreed with employers that only certain workers were allowed to do certain tasks - often nothing to do with safety, it was simply a way of 'protecting' jobs - in effect ensuring that more people were working on a task than would have been necessary. One result of all this is that many industries which today are very profitable only survived at the time via massive Government subsidies, and there was a strong sense of the UK typically producing shoddy, overpriced goods.

That situation had slowly built up since WWII, under a political consensus across both Labour and Conservatives, and I would guess motivated by the desire to protect jobs and give people security - which it did, but arguably at a huge cost in overall standard of living and economic freedom. That started to come to a head over the 1970s oil crisis and the 1978-79 winter of discontent - leading to a growing sense amongst many people that Britain just wasn't working. In a way that's similar to the sense that many people have today, but in those days, the public perception tended to lay the blame (correctly IMO) at too much Government control, too much nationalization, and too much union power.

Mrs. Thatcher came to power with a political philosophy that private enterprise and economic freedom would serve people far better than the status quo, and that's basically what she did: She denationalized everything she could, removed Government subsidies wherever she could on the basis that industries should learn to make a profit by providing decent goods that people actually want to buy, and introduced laws that heavily restricted trade unions' right to strike, and outlawed things like secondary picketing. This shattered the political consensus since at the time Labour was - if anything - moving to the left and advocating more state control and more union power - it was very different from the Labour Party of today!

That was the overall picture. Of course lots of mistakes were made along the way, and I see some posters have already highlighted some of them, but the gist was that Thatcher largely turned the UK from a largely state-controlled economy into a private-enterprise-focused economy.

I think there were a couple of reasons why people remember her so badly - and why she was so unpopular in some communities at the time. The biggest reason was that the transition involved a big economic shock, and Thatcher's political philosophy made her very reluctant to provide much Government support to communities that were affected - the classic example being villages and towns that lost their main source of employment when uneconomic coal mines closed down. There were also a couple of specific political mistakes - the 'poll tax' being the most obvious one. And that notorious Section 28, which prevented schools from teaching about homosexuality as a normal lifestyle - which today looks like an awful anachronism and totally wrong, but at the time was little more than a reflection of how society was.

The fact that Labour didn't remove the trade union laws that Thatcher and Major introduced is very telling. Trade Unions are important but I think in the 70s and 80s, the power was perhaps too much.

 

[507021]

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in politics on this forum again, but I'm going to make this one exception.

There are very good reasons why Thatcher and the Conservative Party are, shall we say, not particularly popular in Liverpool. These include Winston Churchill deploying soldiers and a Royal Navy cruiser to Liverpool during the 1911 strike (which resulted in the deaths of two striking workers), Thatcher's shameful cover up of the Hillsborough disaster and members of her cabinet wanting to put the city into managed decline. I know a lot of people who lived in the city during the 1980s and it was a rather bleak period in the city's history, with its industry decimated and unemployment high. Taking all of that into account, is it really a big surprise to those on the right why there is such a high level of disdain and disrespect for Thatcher and the Conservative Party in this city? As my parents taught me, and I have taught my children: respect is earned, not given.

 

[Efini92]

If you want to make industries profitable, you invest in them and give them space to make improvements, as opposed to selling them off to the highest party-donor

The problem with our nationalised industries was they were grossly inefficient. Look at British leyland as an example. They would get an order of the government for new trucks every year, there was no incentive to design a better product as they knew the orders were guaranteed.
Meanwhile in Europe the small business were consolidating and creating the Scania and MAN we know today.
Their products were far superior as they knew they had to develop to survive.

 

[azOOOOOma]

The same goes for aircraft. Heavily controlled OEMs were tasked with creating heavily specified niche aircraft that the markets didn’t need, hence a few moderately successful machines such as the Trident but a bad rap sheet of commercial failures.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The "Thatcher was an evil witch" perspective is far too simplistic, and there's a lot of myths perpetuated about her premiership (the bus thing, "milk snatcher", etc.). I was born in 1982 so don't really have a personal tale to tell, but my late maternal grandfather is a good example of how complex Thatcher's legacy is. He worked in the local pit his entire adult life up until taking early(ish) retirement when it closed in the late 1980s, so had to live through the strikes of the 70s and 80s... on the other hand the Right to Buy scheme allowed him to become a homeowner by buying his council (formerly NCB) house. This helped his five children (including my mother) get on the property ladder too.

 

[joebassman]

Then there was Norman Tebbit and the get on your bike speech.

Plus the selling off of many school sports fields for development.

Perhaps one of the contributing factors to the alledged obseity crisis we are told we are facing?

 

[Gloster]

I remember there still being free milk for the first 2 or 3 years at the school I attended and I was born in 1980.

That was probably because the local council or education authority decided to fund it, but they would have done so without the help of the government.

 

[JamesT]

It’s interesting that Thatcher is deemed the ‘milk snatcher’ for removing free school milk for 7-11 year-olds, though some reports have it as a collective cabinet decision driven by the Treasury to which she was personally opposed, but as the Education Secretary she was the public face. But there doesn’t seem to be such a level of anger for Edward Short (removed free milk for secondary school pupils in 1968) or Shirley Williams (removed it for 5-7 year-olds in 1977).

 

[azOOOOOma]

Then there was Norman Tebbit and the get on your bike speech.

Plus the selling off of many school sports fields for development.

Perhaps one of the contributing factors to the alledged obseity crisis we are told we are facing?

You’d have a point if it were not for the fact that alleged obesity crisis is not a UK specific phenomenon.

 

[Essan]

Unlike many politicians today, I think by and large Thatcher's policies were well intended*. I even understand the reasoning behind selling off council houses (the idea of getting people to take more personal responsibility for their neighbourhood, by giving them a stake in it through home ownership - though of course the long term consequences weren't given enough consideration and this was ultimately a mistake, IMO).

A lot of it was to fight against the growing concept of everything being "someone else's problem, someone else's fault, cos wee got rites, innit!" She wanted people to accept more personal responsibility for their lives rather than expect someone else to always sort out all their problems for them. Whch I totally agree with. Sadly, on that, she ultimately failed .....

The mines is largely a straw man, IMO - far more mines had been closed previously, mostly under Labour govts. Had the continuing process happened more gradually - as intended - it would have had far less reaching consequences. But Scargill ensured it was a disaster, and I personally blame him.

For me she was our last great prime minister.

(I left school at 17 in 1983)


* ie she was thinking of what was best for the country and the people, not her rich business buddies

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I remember there still being free milk for the first 2 or 3 years at the school I attended and I was born in 1980.

THere was free milk when I started Primary School in 1999

 

[azOOOOOma]

With the milk thing as far as I can tell those who can afford it pay for it and those who can’t get it free. Aren’t the ‘free for everyone’ things just a tax cut for the rich, you know the very things the socialists are dead against? Why should anything be free for those who can afford to pay it?

 

[75A]

Unlike many politicians today, I think by and large Thatcher's policies were well intended*. I even understand the reasoning behind selling off council houses (the idea of getting people to take more personal responsibility for their neighbourhood, by giving them a stake in it through home ownership - though of course the long term consequences weren't given enough consideration and this was ultimately a mistake, IMO).

A lot of it was to fight against the growing concept of everything being "someone else's problem, someone else's fault, cos wee got rites, innit!" She wanted people to accept more personal responsibility for their lives rather than expect someone else to always sort out all their problems for them. Whch I totally agree with. Sadly, on that, she ultimately failed .....

The mines is largely a straw man, IMO - far more mines had been closed previously, mostly under Labour govts. Had the continuing process happened more gradually - as intended - it would have had far less reaching consequences. But Scargill ensured it was a disaster, and I personally blame him.

For me she was our last great prime minister.

(I left school at 17 in 1983)


* ie she was thinking of what was best for the country and the people, not her rich business buddies

Exactly my thoughts. (left School in 1976, aged 17)

 

[GusB]

With the milk thing as far as I can tell those who can afford it pay for it and those who can’t get it free. Aren’t the ‘free for everyone’ things just a tax cut for the rich, you know the very things the socialists are dead against? Why should anything be free for those who can afford to pay it?

Making it free for everyone removes the process of deciding who should receive it - it's not always clear cut.. You also reduce the stigma for those who are in receipt of free milk.

 

[azOOOOOma]

Should we make school meals free for everyone too as we wouldn’t want anyone to have stigma?

I remember being at primary school and the secretary coming in on a Monday reading the register and when your name was called you either said ‘ticket’ or you handed over a few pounds in a special sealed envelope. No stigma from what I recall.

 

[westv]

Should we make school meals free for everyone too as we wouldn’t want anyone to have stigma?

I remember being at primary school and the secretary coming in on a Monday reading the register and when your name was called you either said ‘ticket’ or you handed over a few pounds in a special sealed envelope. No stigma from what I recall.

I don't remember it being a thing either when I was at secondary school in the 70s. From memory I don't think we even knew who got free school meals.

 

[brad465]

It’s interesting that Thatcher is deemed the ‘milk snatcher’ for removing free school milk for 7-11 year-olds, though some reports have it as a collective cabinet decision driven by the Treasury to which she was personally opposed, but as the Education Secretary she was the public face. But there doesn’t seem to be such a level of anger for Edward Short (removed free milk for secondary school pupils in 1968) or Shirley Williams (removed it for 5-7 year-olds in 1977).

Particular names/incidents stick, and I imagine the fact that term rhymes with her name played a very big part in ensuring that stuck with her.

While it's not quite the same thing, the thing Blair is remembered for most is Iraq, despite a catalogue of other policies good and bad, Brown seems to be remembered for selling off our gold reserves in the late 90s, even though it didn't stop 2 further election wins (and being less economically costly than Black Wednesday). On the other side of the pond, Bill Clinton might have been one of the more competent US Presidents, but we all know what he's most remembered for.

 

[Lucan]

The reason why she won three elections despite so many people hating her was that opinions about her were (and are still) very polarised. You idolised her or hated her, a bit like figures such as Elon Musk and Donald Trump today. She started a new cultural outlook that was not what she intended - she was nationalistic but selling off nationalised assets resulted in them being owned by foreigners. She thought she would make us a nation of middle-class shareholders because she thought everyone thought like herself - didn't happen. She sowed the seeds of what is now the gig economy.

 

[joebassman]

She also closed a lot of mines, which I think was probably necessary in the long term but there wasn't enough support for those people who have lost their jobs and entire towns were ruined.

Weren't a lot of the rapid mine closures and battles with the miners more to do with the breaking of the unions than anything else?

Before Thatcher's government were elected there were many strikes and '3 day weeks' because of power cuts, as far as I understand. Although a little before my time.

 

[jfollows]

Weren't a lot of the rapid mine closures and battles with the miners more to do with the breaking of the unions than anything else?

Before Thatcher's government were elected there were many strikes and '3 day weeks' because of power cuts, as far as I understand. Although a little before my time.

The miners effectively brought down the previous Conservative government in 1974, so Thatcher was determined not to suffer the same fate.

 

[joebassman]

While it's not quite the same thing, the thing Blair is remembered for most is Iraq.

Tbf to Blair, the Tories voted to go into Iraq and almost certainly would have done the same if they had been in charge. Although the whole Dr Kelly affair and WMD didn't exactly put Blair in a good light.

 

[RT4038]

Then there was Norman Tebbit and the get on your bike speech.

As valid today as it was then. Take personal responsibility and do not expect an entitlement to Government sorting your life out for you.

 

[75A]

Whilst I completly agree, there's s lot that don't.

 

[RT4038]

Whilst I completly agree, there's s lot that don't.

Of course, and that is why there is such a polarisation of views. (left school in 1974 age 17, so close to you!).

It is quite difficult to have an objective view on the subject, because it very much depends on your own opinions of personal responsibility vs. state security blanket, and the perceptions of experiences at the time. Looking back 40 odd years, it is easy to discount or take for granted the relative wealth of today achieved by many mainly by her policies, whilst accentuating those negative changes that occurred to get to that point (especially if you are too young to have experienced first hand and rely on emotive accounts.). But you can't have your cake and eat it.
Margaret Thatcher achieved a paradigm shift in the political, economic and social thinking of this country. Inevitably not everyone liked it.

 

[Lost property]

Mrs Thatcher brought in the politics of bile and spite.
Prime example sine qua non of provincial middle-class snobbery and prejudice in sensible shoes. A venal, vicious harridan who pandered to and hugely supported by the blue-rinse brigade of the beat 'em, starve 'em and flog 'em back to work politics.
A nasty, vindictive woman who poured scorn and hatred on the poor, low paid, sick and elderly.
Whilst I agree that some businesses should not, and should never been in public ownership (Coal, Car-building, Oil), she went out of her way, quite deliberately, to destroy many industries. Indeed, I remember even the CBI (the unholy bastion of pop-eyed, flat-headed capitalism) complaining that she had gone too far. Her reign then became increasingly autocratic, signs of which were being detected by prominent members of her own party (Howe, Heseltine) who eventually forced a leadership contest.
She doted on her visibly and utterly unintelligent son whilst neglecting her daughter.
And she got into bed (figuatively) with Ronald Reagan, the double-minus epsilon semi-moron of a US president of whom when asked of the Late Robin Williams when he was diagnosed with dementia: 'How can they tell?'

I'm going to stop now lest I throw my laptop across the room.

Watch the programme on Channel 4 about the miner's strike and you will kick your TV in.

And breathe.

Given this thread has produced a variety of responses, some reasonably pragmatic, I have to say the terms used in the above quote define her perfectly.

She had NO redeeming features as either a person or politician. She was a despotic, autocratic dictator whose legacies remain. She did nothing for the UK, except, decimate social adhesions . She was far from alone attracting acolytes outside the political spectrum, who were as repugnant as she was ( talking of which, a special mention for Maude / Joseph in this respect) and she also used brutal repression in the form of developing the police into a quasi paramilitary force.

I was driving to Newark one day, and, the other side of the M1 between Chesterfield / Mansfield, saw what amounted to the police in battalion size numbers and thought, NO ! this is so wrong in the UK. It's been well reported how many subsequently boasted of their overtime payments and material benefits that resulted. The UK Police, police by consent, NOT, through brutality.

It wasn't just the miners who suffered. Her policies cascaded across the UK, Trafford Park for example, was badly hit. For those who have never seen it, try and watch "The Boys from the Blackstuff"...satire it maybe, but, it exemplified the misery endured by millions as she imposed her doctrines of hate and malice.

The DNA was all too evident in her equally repulsive son, failed in everything he's done, but "saved" by the family connection.

I cheered, and I was probably far from alone, with the classic shot of her leaving Downing St, tears of nitric acid rolling down her cheeks, and again when the news was announced she had gone to Hell.

I am bemused as to those who felt she benefitted the railways, because she had a long term detestation of rail and rarely travelled on such.

And finally, for those who wonder what working life was like in a mine, I recommend a visit to "Big Pit"...possibly the best museum in the UK...it's been cleaned up, obviously, for visitors, but, it's about as far from being some sugar coated sanitised display as you can get...there's also bits of railway stuff there.