Did Thatcher Ruin or Save the UK Economy?

The economic impact of Margaret Thatcher's economic policies was immense. This is a look at the impact on inflation, unemployment, growth, inequality and the long-term structure of the economy. ► Please subscribe! kzbin.info...
00:00 Intro
00:47 Monetarism and Recession
02:22 Thatcher vs The Unions
03:16 Rising Inequality
04:39 Privatisation
05:35 Right to Buy and Housing
06:40 Lawson Boom and Bust
08:20 Finance and Credit Crunch
09:54 Thatcher's Successes
10:50 Mixes Success and Evaluation
Text version.
www.economicshelp.org/blog/21...
About
► www.economicshelp.org was founded in 2006 by Tejvan Pettinger, who studied PPE at Oxford University and teaches economics. He has published several economics books, including:
► Cracking Economics. www.economicshelp.org/shop/cr...
► What Would Keynes Do? Amazon amzn.to/2xShqq4

[@economicshelp1]

A comparison of Norway and UK - how different decisions in the 1980s, led to very different outcomes. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aGXIanlpZdl-Z7M

[@willyhill7509]

Well, err, yes Norway is not in the EU, they have more control over their economic policy.

[@graemebarriball303]

Norway has a population smaller than London yet produced as much oil and gas by volume as the UK. On a per capita basis oil made Norway much richer than the UK. This is the trouble with socialist economists you tell only half the story. Like housing, the UK still has 19% of its housing stock as subsidised, similar to France yet way more than Germany where only 7% of their housing stock is subsidised. She made mistakes, but without Thatcher this country would be a bigger basket case than it is now. At least you should declare your socialist bias.

[@SenorTucano]

You completely ignore the cultural, geographic and demographic differences between Norway and the UK that are the cause of the sovereign wealth disparity

[@myoctobersymphony4446]

What a completely disingenuous comparison.

[@francisravenscroft-dw6gi]

Not at all, I personally hope that the bank of england raises to base rate to levels seen in Thatcher's years in Government.

[@memisemyself]

My biggest problem with Thatcher is that she was running an economy, where money was the most important element but she was elected to run a country, where people were the most important element. While governments have to keep the economy healthy for the benefit of people, she aimed to make the economy or part of it anyway, strong for the benefit of big business. The human element of the society she ran was forgotten.

[@lkytmryan]

Next to defense and law and order, the economy is the single most important thing for the people of the country. If the economy isn’t thriving, people starve or rely on the government to feed them which is an awful way to live.

[@memisemyself]

@@lkytmryan A thriving economy is of no use to the public if it's organised purely for the benefit of the already wealthy and profit of big business.

[@stevezodiac491]

The trouble is, if a business is unprofitable, it helps nobody and at that time the unions were asking for more and more, for doing less and less, and it couldn't continue. People who lose their jobs because of a lack of profitability can always apply for jobs at businesses that are profitable, with government help in the interim.

[@mrconfusion87]

​​@@stevezodiac491But that is not what Maggie did, according to many northerners! She basically had the "to hell with you all" attitude towards them!

[@user-xl8on7sf8o]

Thatcher opened the door for the greed culture that is still with us today

[@jakemorgan9275]

I grew up in South Wales, and in the 1980s Thatcher decimated whole communities which have still not recovered. While most people these days would agree that closing down the coal mines was a great idea, not replacing the mines with any other form of local employment was nothing short of cruel. If Thatcher had been a good PM, she would have realised this and instead of going to war against the miners, she could have won them over with a better form of employment, which would replace the mining jobs. This is just one of the many ways that Thatcher all but destroyed whole communities up and down the country and the economic and cultural hangover from her policies are with us to this very day.

[@user-lp5wb2rb3v]

Imagine is Thatcher actually cared for workers, she would have had the coal miners work in electronics/ semiconductors, it would be BSMC not TSMC, it would be Acorn not Intel or AMD etc

[@jakemorgan9275]

@@thetruth9210 Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, I was just a small child at the time so I didn't really understand what was going on. However, in hindsight it would be easy to suggest that she could have used tax to incentivise business to move to these areas etc. However, it's really not my area of expertise so I'd have to look into this in a deeper way to be sure what was and wasn't attempted. As to your point that, "Thatcher did not go to war with the miners. They went to war with her"; I highly recommend you watch "Miners' Strike 1984: The Battle for Britain" on Channel 4 (C4OD). It's a 3 part documentary and the second episode in particular uses real footage taken from both the police and the miners that clearly shows that Thatcher did indeed go to war with the miners, and not the other way around. You can also see these docs on KZbin at Channel 4 Documentaries.

[@jakemorgan9275]

@@thetruth9210 You make very compelling points - nobody said it was easy and I certainly don't have the answers. Mind you, I wasn't Prime Minister so I didn't need to have the answers. Even so, this is a classic example of the short-term and long-term effects of removing the main source of income from areas without a strategy for replacing the lost jobs. We should all take note, given the prospect of widespread AI and tech driven job displacement over the coming years.

[@jakemorgan9275]

@@thetruth9210 Well thought out and written, with some excellent points. Many thanks. I think you are correct about Scargill and his communist values. I also agree that those who continued to work should have been allowed to do so unhindered and that was not the case. Those who defied the pickets were treated like traitors and this whole toxic situation completely devastated communities, literally tearing them apart. At the same time, this response shows just how much the miners felt that they were fighting to protect the source of income for their families. The mines did need closing down. I don't think many educated people would disagree with that. However, I still believe that this situation could have been avoided or very much reduced if Thatcher had handled it differently. I really do strongly recommend that you watch "Miners' Strike 1984: The Battle for Britain" on Channel 4 (C4OD). I'd be very interested to see your thoughts after watching.

[@user-lp5wb2rb3v]

this this this. Why didnt thatcher provide PCB/ IC jobs as a replacement to coal mines? It would have been part of the computer literacy initiative

[@evophantom]

Privatisation is this country's single biggest issue. Selling off assets to companies with no real incentive to invest in improving or building capacity. So benefits are to shareholders only. Water firms should be the first industry brought back into public ownership. But so should rail companies and energy.

[@user-hq2is7hh1j]

You have no idea how important is to reduce inflation. And those public sector companies were actually private before ww2. You have made a mistake to nationalize them and thacher made the right move

[@colincampbell4261]

​@user-hq2is7hh1Inflation in the 1970s was due to the x3 price rise in oil. Not workers wages.

[@user-hq2is7hh1j]

@@colincampbell4261 oil price doesnt couse inflation. Inflation is made by government spending. Those spending costs needed to be cut

[@colincampbell4261]

@@user-hq2is7hh1j totally wrong - energy price effect all prices.

[@dannychurch7223]

Try getting gas fitted or a telephone before thatcher. Unions we’re milking the public for all they were worth.

[@robincook5999]

i started work in 1970 ,because of the UK relations with Israel we got hit with huge increase in oil prices, which caused inflation. Strange thing when I bought my first house we had 14% inflation but I had no problem paying my mortgages, (from a builing Society). But Coal gave us a certain amount of control over our Economy. Margaret Thatchers Arrival was based on the idea that British industry was inefficient, which it was,rather than updating it, they sent it to places which had poor quality of life, Efficiency was based on deregulation rather than modernisation, so I think this set the road of the last 40 years ,degraded everything to try and make a quick buck. Know we have 14million people living below the poverty line ,the quality of employment is terrible . The Government is talking about the armed forces but in a conflict we would have zero way to sustain ourselves, we keep getting involved in conflicts which is making us unpopular with the greatest part of the Worlds Population. In my life time 70 year's successive Government have failed me.

[@dvidclapperton]

Inflation steeply rose with Heath as PM. Don't forget the tories were in government for half of the decade so should tske responaibiluty for half of the rise, because labour were not tesponsible for the whole of the rise. The 3 day week happened under Heath, not Wilson. The opposition benches don'r all hate Israel so assuming a non tory government will resume a terrible relationship with Israel and see the return of 1970's style soaring inflation is ridiculous. Inflation has soared several timez under tory governmsnts, even under Thatcher more than once. It's not all labour's fault especially when it doesn't happen under a labour government. Inflation was low under Blair and Brown to prove that labour government doesn't mean soaring inflation.

[@AshMundo]

That is very sad 😔 We're stuffed!

[@garethhhhh]

Yes and no, manufacturing left due to the UK oil and gas. It caused a spike in the value of the £ making manufacturing cheaper in other nations. Thatcher saved the economy at the time, but future politicians failed by not adapting as we went along.

[@marumaru6084]

Mass immigration has done nothing good for the work force. Labour even shut training colleges all for the sake of the awful university expansion (all on debt!).

[@belindathorne9784]

@@garethhhhh What caused the spike in £ was the deregulation of the City Of London and the £ becoming a speculation currency.

[@ntomenicgiorgo3598]

After seeing the decline in the uk, Italy, Japan, Germany The US public debt and China's ridiculous property bubble and infrastructure projects to maintain artificial gdp, I'm starting to think humans haven't learned how to maintain an economy and never will. The whole premise of constant economic growth tied to population growth and consumption, the use of natural resources with little productivity is a fatally flawed concept anyway.

[@thekaiser1156]

China's gdp isn't artifical, it's still growing by an average of 5% a year despite the deflation of the housing bubble

[@user-lp5wb2rb3v]

you are wrong about china

[@gabbar51ngh]

It's not. Because technological advancements and how you utilise those resources also contribute to economic growth. It's hilarious how people who have no idea about economics think they have found some golden truth. "This entire thing is flawed. Let's start over." China did that under Mao, one of the largest recorded famines took place under him. Naturally afterwards under Deng, they moved to neoliberalism to make China rise again. It's not so easy as most think. People work for selfish interests which are resources and money. Economy and policies are made in accordance with that. Economy needs growth because as an individual, people want growth in their money and earnings. Unless you can turn everyone into a monk which has no materialistic desire.

[@RenegadeProH]

Huge error in judgment was not investing into a sovereign wealth fund. The same fund could have been used today to invest in renewable projects and improved infrastructure but who knows with the government we have they probably pissed it all away anyway.

[@Isomoar]

That doesn't benefit the Tories though now or then does it 😂😂😂😂

[@piccalillipit9211]

NO NO NO - we had to give it to rich people as tax cuts .

[@daftdigital]

They stole it

[@JenniferA886]

I see your point… however, this would at some point have just been “squandered” on crap

[@skasteve6528]

The oil wealth went to funding tax cuts & paying for over 3 million unemployed.

[@Kazi2812]

I was born in the early 90's, we're not taught any of this in School. I am almost 30 now, and I'm only now learning about economics of the past that's lead us to where we are today. Thanks very much for this informative video.

[@aaddy5157]

Don't believe everything you see on KZbin.

[@kirannnnnn]

Don't trust everything they thought in your school history class

[@francisravenscroft-dw6gi]

why do think politics and economics are nt taught in British schools ? Because UK governments want to keep their tax payers ignorant.

[@KeyToTime]

I was born in the early 90s, I was taught thatcher at A level. It isn't black and white, Thatcher wasn't perfect, but she restored a lot of pride and confidence in Britain internally and regained lost respect internationally. Britain's relative economic decline reversed under her leadership and the country saw the longest period of uninterrupted growth (1992-2007) as a result of her reforms. Agree with her politics or not, she was a strong leader with a clear vision for the country, something that has been lacking in prime ministers of late.

[@ab-ym3bf]

@@KeyToTime great, she restored pride and confidence, at the cost of selling off all the table silver leading to the current state, a country that is selling each other coffee and lives off the grace of strangers laundering their money. You can´t eat pride and confidence, and to speak of international respect after the hit "Brexit - the series" is stretching it a bit.

[@fiachramaccana280]

The issue with privatisation was threefold (1) they were sold cheaply allowing for windfall gains for investors at the expense of taxpayers and (2) the proceeds were mostly disappated in tax cuts for the rich and (3) oligoply private utilities replaced state owned companies and were deliberetely poorly regulated by toothless regulators. Privatisation by itself is not necessarily a bad thing but it was deseigned to benefit private investors only.

[@markwalker2627]

Private owners=Tory donors

[@evildrome]

Privatisation of telecoms has been a roaring success. Anyone that remembers the old BT, waiting 6 months to get a phone, etc. OTOH privatisation of water, rail & energy has been a total disaster. Why did one work and the others didn't? Water and energy are natural monopolies... is that the reason?

[@user-lp5wb2rb3v]

@@evildrome Yes! you cant compete in rail. You cant compete in water. You cant compete in natural gas. Well you could compete in solar panels for electricity, but that wouldnt be the national grid

[@fyank1]

Privatisation of critical utilities and public health is always a bad idea.

[@TheMajorpickle01]

@@evildrome I didn't actually realise that BT was a nationalized thing initially, I thought they just called themselves British Telecomm aha

[@kjquinn7856]

As an American working in Britain in the mid-1980's, my colleagues and I were amazed at the Thatcher government's willingness to privatize everything as quickly as possible. Rather than take an approach of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the businesses first and then selling of a share (or the whole thing), Thatcher chose outright privatization. As a result, all the benefits went to the shareholders and the government was left with the costs of unemployment and retraining of displaced workers. Some of Thatcher's efforts seemed to be born out of spite, i.e., breaking up the Central Electricity Generating Board into three companies and allowing them to shop the world markets for coal. This seemed like a direct attack on Arthur Scargill and the miners union as payback for the miners' strike. The result was the devastation of the UK coal industry and the communities around the collieries. The Big Bang led to London becoming one of the major financial centers of the world. The knock-on effect was the US repealing the Glass-Steagall Act which had separated retail banking from investment/merchant banking. This was done so that US banks could remain competitive with London's banks. The result, however, was that American banks took on excessive risks with the knowledge that they would be backstopped by the US government, same as in the UK.

[@AnnaFed015]

John Desmond Heppolette's approach is pivotal for achieving success in the realm of online commerce. His management group has showcased outstanding effectiveness, and I also value the content available on his KZbin channel....

[@AnnaFed015]

Johndeshep934

[@AnnaFed015]

that is john's verified telegams user written above..

[@tomaszcz_k]

My Retirement investments have prospered because of Sir John Desmond Heppolette's supervision. But it's important to remember that the quantity of capital invested ultimately determines rewards. A large start-up cost increases the likelihood of bigger returns.

[@martinduran9523]

Scam

[@jonnyc429]

Jesus these are getting brazen

[@mazboengineer]

Gutted our MPs in Westminster didn’t copy the Norwegian model for natural resources ☹️

[@penderyn8794]

Leaching off Scotland's resources ....London always been good at that. The same way they sucked poor Wales dry

[@ahdhudbbh]

The UK had a tiny fraction of oil reserves per head compared to Norway. Putting it all into an oil wealth fund would have saved just a few month worth of public spending - so wouldnt really have made much difference

[@peteroneill2991]

Correction the TORIES did not do it.

[@peteroneill2991]

@@ahdhudbbh True but a trillion is still a nice number to have in the bank.

[@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993]

​@@peteroneill2991did labour?

[@richardwarren537]

I can remember having to goto a school to pick up food parcels with my mum with the no frills brand, now 40 years on ive had to use food banks again, crazy

[@Godlike-87]

That is a National tragedy that should really be broadcast.

[@richardwarren537]

@@Godlike-87worst part is that my dad had to finish pit through a lump of coal that fell on his back and was in hospital for around 6 week and benefit agency would give him nothing

[@Godlike-87]

@@richardwarren537 sorry to hear it. What do you think is the root cause of these economic and social problems?

[@richardwarren537]

@@Godlike-87 lies,greed,favourtism etc, it's multiple of things, but I think the main one is overpopulation

[@Godlike-87]

@@richardwarren537 overpopulation? This is a malfusian myth. If the system is having scalability issues then surely it means the system itself is the problem. It needs redesigning to accommodate for scale. We can't make people just disappear neither should we.

[@cocoacrispy7802]

It's almost as though the UK political system is a game of 'capture the flag,' where two separate parties compete for control, encouraging decisions benefiting one narrow economic class over the other, rather than the welfare of the nation as a whole. In practical terms, since the decline of the Liberal Party, Britons have been confronted with a choice between Labour and Conservatives, the former offering exclusively left socialist policies, the latter private laissez-faire alternatives. As it turns out, either set of policies is suited to a limited set of real-world situations, but when applied across-the-board, result in dysfunction. What is missing is the type of social-democratic policy that might have been on offer from the Liberals. The US, unfortunately, offers no alternative, as its Congress has been a captive of the corporate elite since the late '70s, with disastrous consequences for the working and middle classes. However, a comparison with Germany and the Scandinavian countries is helpful. Due to their systems of proportional representation, their voters have benefited from a much wider range of policy options.

[@Kidderman2210]

True. I think this is to some extent the result of our First-Past-the-Post, winner takes all voting system. Parties gain nothing by working together. There was a belated attempt in 2019 by the May government to create a consensus Brexit deal with Labour and LibDems, but it failed.

[@SomePotato]

Labour are social democrats. And though social democrats are part of the socialist spectrum, modern social democracy has very few actually socialist goals.

[@realitywins9020]

Labour did not have 'exclusively left Socialist policies'. Tony Blair was a 'third way' centrist. Most other Labour leaders and governments have been moderate centre left social democrats who still supported a mixed economy. Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn are the only two Labour leaders in modern times who could realistically be described as 'left socialists' and neither of them ever won an election

[@tropics8407]

Seems to me that the USA economy has stormed ahead with every kind of innovation possible while the UK and Europe are creaking and groaning to a stop. Which system to choose ? 🤔🤷‍♂️

[@raftio4931]

​@@tropics8407With harsh consequences for the people

[@barrysnelson4404]

I am old but one of the surviving witnesses of pre Thatcher industrial Britain. We never hear the word "blacked" now but it was universal then. I worked in a factory in Newcastle and the management purchased a CNC lathe. The unions blacked it immediately and it stood idle for six months. When it finally got working it had to be manned by three workers. Normally, one worker could look after two or three. Amusingly, the company's biggest competitor was a German company who still exist and the site in Newcastle is now home to a big Audi dealership. Thatcher wasn't voted in in 1979 by a few Toffs but by millions of working people who could see the mindless, kamikase Trades Unions were destroying their jobs. I was there. This is how it was.

[@scottyfive4319]

Thatcher destroyed all the jobs worth having anyway. Every issue facing the working man today can be traced direct to Thatcher's policies. This includes the dire economy we have today. I am nearing 70 I have only worked for one company the was UK owned and that only survived with orders from American Oil. The UK now owns very little sold down the river by the Tories and yet people still vote for them and still will.

[@barrysnelson4404]

@@scottyfive4319 You should have worked in an engineering factory during the reign of "Sunny Jim". You don't understand what was lost.

[@scottyfive4319]

@@barrysnelson4404 I worked in an electronics factory making telecoms test equipment, no unions, we still got paid in the top 10% of engineers in the area. The company believed they got the best if they paid the best and overall I think that they did. I know of R&D engineers that would work 12 hour days to get projects finished on time, since they were salaried they did not get compensation for the hours worked. The company hired only a certain type of person, I knew of one guy that had all that the job required, but he could be a bit of a "hot head" he never got through the first interview. I have worked in Union shops in the 1970's totally different to the 35 years in the electronics field.

[@johnburns4017]

That was *not* typical.

[@barrysnelson4404]

@@johnburns4017 Sorry but I was there. We were on Tyneside and made engineered components for the shipbuilding industry which was on both banks of the Tyne and on the Wear and the Tees. At least we would have supplied them if we hadn't been on strike so much. Our awful delivery performance didn't actually matter as the shipyards were always on strike as well. Look up the names who we lost in the 70's, Swan Hunter, Vickers etc etc All gone. Just remember the timing - Thatcher was 1979, and voted in by me and my fellow workers who were desperate for something to be done. The TUs then weren't benign organisations working for their members. The atmosphere was class war. They have changed since but I won't allow history to be sanitised and airbrushed away. I have three sons of a socialist persuasion and when I tell them the tales of a typical day they refuse to believe it could have been that bad. But it was. Deny my words all you like but you just prove that you weren't their either in engineering or automotive or machine tools in the 70's. While I still live I will tell it how it was.

[@derekjc777]

Selling off of council houses was only part of the problem. Removal of rent controls allowed rents to rise at rates massively above inflation, forcing the poor to pay more, and by flooding the UK with cheap credit by deregulating mortgages and building societies, house prices rapidly increased, moving buying your own home to get out of the rental sector further and further out of reach, as house prices rose and wages stagnated. It doesn’t help that housing costs are underrepresented in inflation indices that are often used to set pay rises, while increased imputed rents count towards GDP, so increased house prices look like growth - which they aren’t - but don’t look like inflation - which they are.

[@evildrome]

Its odd... they are included in US core CPI statistics under OER (owners equivalent rent). Which imputes the rent you would be paying if you didn't own the house.

[@derekjc777]

@@evildrome This is the imputed rent that counts towards GDP in the UK, but even real rents are underrepresented in inflation indices. And wages are set by CPI - Consumer Price Index - which is a basket of goods and services, but does not include housing costs such as rent, mortgage payments or local tax. And yet rents and house prices have massively increased since the late 1970s, making average rents rise from 7% of income to over 30%. And this obvious, tangible inflation is not counted in CPI. Madness!

[@evildrome]

@@derekjc777 Looks deliberate. If you don't measure it, you don't need to do anything about it. I occasionally see Huw Pill. I have a few interesting questions to ask him.

[@fooballers7883]

well said

[@derekjc777]

@@evildrome The ONS knows there is a problem. Retail Price Index does include some housing costs but CPI is preferred internationally, so that became the default in 1996, and the coalition replaced CPI with RPI in pensions in 2010/11 (but not rail fares and student loans). Because of the lack of housing costs, CPI is generally lower than RPI, and so using it for salary and pension increases saves businesses and pension providers money. The ONS is trying to reintroduce some housing costs with the CPIH, which includes owner occupiers’ housing costs, but this ignores rents, which typically increase at a far higher rate than owner occupiers’ costs. This lower rate than RPI (but higher than CPI) is planned to replace RPI in 2030.

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

Thatcher is the reason I live in Canada, an economic migrant. I wonder how many others would attribute their emigration to the wasteland of an economy created by Thatcher. Let it be quite clear, just as the old industries were dying, Thatcher's policies and outlook was just as entrenched in outdated ideas. She was devoid of forward thinking and destroyed a future for so many; the lucky ones let, the unlucky ones are still paying for her lack of vision, stubborn attachment to old grievances and and faith in outdated economic theory.

[@Truthseeker1515]

If I was 25 years younger I would have no hesitation.

[@bereal6590]

I wish I had. I contemplated it, didn't, that was a Huge mistake

[@Decrepit_biker]

Thatcher took a struggling Britian and broke it completely, and sold the shiny bits off to her rich mates. I grew up in the 80s in a single parent family and was living in abject poverty due to this woman.... she is the worst thing ever to happen to the UK.

[@idonthavealoginname]

100% Spot on, she was pure evil.

[@annenunney9907]

She really was evil

[@sweeepzone5155]

What job did your parent have?

[@stubadds6890]

70s Britain was totally broken, it needed changing.

[@annenunney9907]

@@stubadds6890 well if it wasn’t it is now

[@londondisc]

She was ousted due to introduction of poll tax. Other taxed she introduced were Capital Transfer Tax, 100 percent increase in company car tax, increased VAT rate from 8 percent to 15 percent with a broadening of tax, removal of marriage allowance , removal of mortgage interest relief, removal of Retirement Annuity payment relief etc etc. Yes she reduced top rates of tax but no one paid those high rates due to all the available tax deductions. One year listening to the budget on the news I blacked out and fainted due to all the increases. I used to be an Accountant also prepared tax returns so I know the detail. She also sold the Crown silver the utilities, North Sea gas reserves. She got lucky that she won against Authur Scargill due to a mild winter and large stocks of coal.

[@ath3263]

Compared to France and Germany that kept control of their heavy industries were able to rebound & grow in the 1980s and 1990's onwards. Thatcherism in the Uk just beneficial to the top 1% privatisation of Car, Coal, Ship Buildings and the deliberate running down of Northern English and Welsh communities

[@injest1928]

I think a question we have to ask is why are British Government policies aimed at the short term? And what allows some other countries such as Norway to invest in the long term? Does it have something to do with culture and ideology, or is it the political system itself that incentivises it?

[@jonnyc429]

I wonder if it's that Norway doesn't still cling onto this "we used to be great" notion that the British do. So they think ahead to what they want in the future than try to hark back to the past.

[@stumac869]

​@@jonnyc429who actually clings onto 'we used to be great' because I see it mentioned in comments but yet to hear anybody say in conversation? Our economy was in good shape in 2007 but New Labour decided to grow the economy using cheap imported labour instead of increasing productivity. We're now dependent on low skilled, badly paid jobs all supported by government debt. The Conservative and coalition governments were no better because they continued with the same failed Blair/Brown policies of big government and high taxation which is an economy killer.

[@johnsshed995]

It apears that the Tory party trys to do as much damage in the shortist amount of time just incase the do not get for reelected the next tearm .

[@tharoz6406]

There are a couple of causes. Our adversarial style of politics, first part the post, one winner takes all the power, this discourages compromise and coalition. See what happened to the Lib Dems when they joined the Tories in coalition. They verifiably moderated Tory policy but voters didn't like austerity, so they punished the Lib Dems for supporting it, and voted the Tories in alone, who doubled down on austerity and made it worse. Voters are stupid (in this case Lib Dem voters were particularly dumb, preferring to live in idealistic fantasy rather than actually have to deal with reality in government.) The parliamentary term limit is as far as a government will look ahead, because its all about winning the next election. What's the point of a policy that will only show a benefit after the next election, when someone else can take the credit?

[@Helperbot-2000]

@@jonnyc429 perhaps, tho its more that we just dont think of our"greatness" at all, id guess the more important factor is the plethora of parties who have to form coalitions and cooperate, theyre incentivized to make compromises on laws so most people are pleased or risk other parties not wanting to work with them

[@dickie_white]

Thank you. We have been saying something similar for a while. She learned asset stripping from Tory grandees & her husband's associates. It produced a short term upswing, but now we reap the consequences of living in a hollowed-out state with nothing left to sell.

[@al9709]

Asset stripping is something corporate raiders do for their own benefit. It's a very emotive and critical way to explain how Thatcher used capitalism to move unproductive assets in loss making companies to productive companies so they make a profit. Thatcher never gained from 'asset stripping ' or more correctly closing down loss making organisations. Only the country gained and the unions lost. Nobody has the right to parasite off the other people in the country by subsidising loss making businesses. Yet that's what the unions supported. Today the unions control government and abuse their power hence we have all these strikes going on all the time. We forget that the unions developed after the war are responsible for most of the problems this country has had. By there nature unions are set up by the few to benefit their organisation to the detriment of the rest of the country. Just look at London underground. This can only exist in a government controlled organisation. It would never exist in this way in the competitive corporate world.

[@paulc4383]

Regarding asset stripping, is it not the case that many Tory MPs are landlords of ex council properties in prime London locations?

[@johnurquhart4614]

Very interesting summary, thank you. I arrived in London in late 1983 and stayed until 1995, so was able to experience Thatcherism first-hand. So many people told me during the first few years, especially during the miners' strike, that I needed to have lived in the UK in the preceding years to understand why Thatcher's reforms were necessary. I only saw the shocking repression, violence and cavalier disregard for the suffering of working class Brits, which didn't improve in the years following. I well remember the so-called 'Community charge' or 'poll tax' as everyone called it, a sign of Thatcher's ideological madness, which itself was a sign of her actual growing madness. Back in Australia, my homeland, there was the bizarre spectacle of a Labor government mimicking in many respects the policies of the UK Tories, deregulating the economy, privatising everything (this was jointly done with the states) and feeding a housing 'boom' that has left Australia with one of the most unaffordable housing markets in the world and a de-industrialised economy that once had a car industry but does no longer. There has also been a failure to establish a sovereign wealth fund, with the same lack of accrued wealth that might have been something to rival or surpass Norway's. Why we follow in the footsteps of British failures is anyone's guess.

[@Unwholesomehumour]

You need to remember that the Miner's strikes were in fact Secondary Picketing of Power stations (to stop coal being delivered) which was at the time illegal, not certain if that still applies. The violence in part was a result of police attempts to deal with illegal action. As for violence; it wasn't the police who threw a concrete slab from a bridge onto the transport of a Mine Worker who didn't strike so as to feed his family. I worked with a former Policeman who was involved in this and heard that there was plenty of wrong on both sides. All in all a sad time for the country

[@jmolofsson]

I was in the UK before Thatcher; so I *_do_* understand why people saw Thatcher as "necessary." Thatcher's era became a lot longer than was good for Britain, but it was in my humble opinion due to two events that couldn't have been predicted : 1. the Falklands War 2. the implosion of the Soviet empire That was Britain's bad luck. The thing I deplore the most about English culture, as a European with relatives in England, is the combative debating culture, all about "winning" (winning an argument, winning power for Our Side, making the other side suffer), never about unifying the nation as a whole. So I deplore when Thatcher's detractors don't recognize the *_own side's_* responsibility, nor the effect of luck and chance.

[@allocated_capital]

I don’t think home ownership is a public good, but I do think it is falsely thought of as an investment when it should be characterized as a commodity. It is ridiculous that almost all other assets depreciate in value over time yet it’s almost expected that the value of your house should magically increase over the time you owned it

[@iamsuperflush]

Georgist economics would say that the value of the structure does actually depreciate, it's just that the value of the land it is built on appreciates much faster.

[@DBGE001]

When oil was discovered in the late 1960s, the Norwegian government laid down the principle that oil should be used to make a “qualitatively better society” (link). The industry was put under democratic control with the government retaining 70% ownership of the oil fields and companies. But in the UK, the election of Mrs Thatcher in 1979 heralded a very different economic philosophy. Thatcher was an adherent of free market economics. The mantra of the government was to privatise. Britoil and BP were all privatised in the 1980s. And unlike Norway, it left the UK government with no direct ownership of oil and gas. In 1980 the UK cabinet office warned privatisation of Britoil would raise $1 billion, but this short-term gain would be a very high loss in the long-term. Studies have suggested the UK missed out on at least $400bn of revenues if they had followed the Norwegian model of state ownership and higher taxation. Sukhdev Johal, professor of accounting at Queen Mary University of London, thinks the UK could have had a sovereign wealth fund of £850bn had the UK followed the Norwegian model. John Hawksworth who wrote the paper “Dude where’s my oil money?” suggested a more conservative £400bn, but that was in 2014. £850bn is around £13,000 per person or 33% of the UK’s national debt.

[@PEdulis]

How ironic that just about the only positive thing she did, leading the UK into the EU's single market, was now destroyed by her even less competent successors.

[@xtc2v]

The positive thing in her time was North Sea oil and Gas coming on stream. The EU was a net financial loss

[@PEdulis]

@@xtc2v Maybe you didn't bother to inform yourself and you also did not watch the video, so let me repeat what is common knowledge AND was said in the video: Because Thatcher just gave away North Sea oil and gas for basically nothing, the UK is now again the poor man of Europe while Norway actually used its oil to setup an investment fund for all Norwegians that now stands at over a trillion so that it could easily pay for the cost of covid. Every pound invested in the UK's membership of the EU returned aroundn £10 for the UK's economy, so it was by far the best investment the UK could ever make. This was explained before the referendum but the Quitterlings "had enough of experts", so they did not listen but now it is obvious since the UK never paid more than £8.5 billion net into the EU but its economy declined by at least 4% through Brexit, probably closer to 6%. Even assuming just 4%, that means a loss of £80 billion per year which is pretty much exactly ten times the £8.5 billion and this is not the total cost yet since controlling imports will only start in a week and according to Rees-Mock, this will be "an act of self-harm" that will increase prices for various goods drastically. And next year, the UK will lose the right to do Euro clearing which will cost it another £80 billion. To show the absurdity of leaving the EU for economic reasons, two figures are enough actually, you can leave everything else aside: As mentioned, the UK never paid more than £8.5 billion net into the EU and the UK's government declared that just completing the additional paperwork caused by Brexit costs UK businesses at least £7.5 billion per year so even if not a single UK busines had lost any revenue or even gone bust, it would still have been insanity to do this crazy act of self-harm.

[@bereal6590]

@@PEdulis 👏👍✌️

[@avancalledrupert5130]

​@@PEdulis yea but my wages have gone up loads because of the tradesmen shortage it created. That's what I predicted, that's what I wanted,that's what happened and now my life is better.

[@PEdulis]

@@avancalledrupert5130 But is it really? Did you get wage rises in excess of 20 %? If not, your life is still worse, it is just comparatively better to your fellow Brits who did not get the wage rises you got - and Brexit made not just yourself poorere but those poor people A LOT poorer. Is THAT actually what you predicted and wanted?

[@jamesedwards7241]

Thatcher's mindset was always in step with that of the US to some extent, her idea to deregulate and so let the market rip sadly did just that, it ripped the manufacturing heart out of the Uk so in effect it was the markets once given a free hand that crashed the Uk economy in a very similar manner to how it had in the US and this of course opened the way for the government to sell, sell, sell which further weakened to economy. North Sea oil which should have secured the Uk's financial stability was sold off to foreign bidders forcing this country to buy back its own oil at international market prices, The failure to provide large-scale gas storage facilities meant we ended up with the same scenario as oil, buying it back off the market both of which forced up prices to the consumer but gave very little back to the nation as a whole. Unemployment rocketed, inflation went out of control and growth stagnated and all this while the nation haemorrhaged money quickly mopped up into tax haves never to see these shores again. Her fiscal mismanagement was epic to behold made all the worse by the government's refusal to even accept there was a problem at all. The fact that she hung on so very long was only due to the Falklands war kicking off but even so this did not deter the Torys one bit. They were determined to stay with their sick policies even though they could clearly see the damage they were doing.

[@Kidderman2210]

Very good. This is a fairly honest, unbiased account. Thatcher was certainly a divisive figure with a result that she is either demonized or idolized. The coal strike of 1984 in particular divides opinion even today. Coal mining had no future, but the mining communities were treated in a hearltess, ruthless way. Thatcher was also, for a while, aware of the environmental problems caused by older industries and created the Environmental Protection Act, which eventually led to the Environment Agency. She was after all a Science Graduate, the only one who ever became a Prime Minister.

[@leoninocat5070]

Idolized for the rich( a minory),demonized by the poor( almost everybody)

[@myoctobersymphony4446]

They were treated that way by their own union.

[@neildee9834]

So true. I often ask, how many jobs did Scargill save? None, of course. How desperately we might have needed some of those since. The industry was dying, and hugely uncompetitive, but some jobs could have been salvaged. But both parties were so determined on conflict. Ego? Belief? But certainly Scargill was, and remained, too self interested to truly have his members interests at heart. Even 50 years on he was still whinging about the union funding his free flat in the Barbican, bleeding Union funds

[@jamesmc1272]

Coal mining had no future! 300 years supply under britain. we stopped and the rest of the world carried on, Germany Poland russia, China to name just a few. It was cynical political revenge by Thatcher. Oh and don't forget we carried on importing while closing our own pits.

[@user-rp6pi5iv5x]

Funny how the destruction of mining communities is wept over by the same folk who applaud our membership of the EU, which did exactly the same thing to our fishing communities, the difference being that the fishing industry was providing profit and sustaining itself. Even now we have left, they are still allowed to steal out fish, package it up and sell it back to us. £6.50 for a piece of cod at the fish and chip shop????

[@CM-xg1vm]

So no mention that through this period automation and containerisation meant that manufacturing no longer needed massive amounts of labour.

[@terrancehall9762]

Automation is a overused excuse.

[@CM-xg1vm]

@@terrancehall9762 Well having worked in manufacturing for over thirty years lot's of jobs have been replaced by machines. What is your basis of saying it is an over used excuse?

[@terrancehall9762]

@CM-xg1vm manufacturing is getting offshore more than automated. It is due to trade policy, taxation and lack of investment more than automation.

[@CM-xg1vm]

@@terrancehall9762 I was asking where you are getting this insight? I've told you about my thirty plus years manufacturing experience, across europe not only UK. So any manufacturing experience?

[@CM-xg1vm]

@@terrancehall9762 UK climbed from 9th biggest manufacturing sector in the world to 8th last year overtaking France. While im sure we could do more with lower taxes, lower energy cost and even lower wages the fact is that you can output much highr monetary value now with lower labour input.

[@lucasdeyton8842]

I've only just found your channel, but this is incredible. You do an amazing job of summarizing both the historical issues and the technical decisions made across a plethora of economic events

[@oooollllmmmm0987]

Iron Lady is a villain in Wales. If you go to small museums around Brecon, Merthyr Tydfil area she truly ruined whole communities. It’s not surprise that people in desperation and rage try to assassin her. It’s sad that movies are made about her but not about whole families turning to poverty overnight.

[@xtc2v]

Welsh mines were not a nice place to work. Unhealthy, hard labour and dangerous. It is because the money was so good that anyone stuck the job.

[@garyb455]

Labour closed more mines than the Tories ever did google it

[@oooollllmmmm0987]

@@xtc2v Thatcher wasn’t only closing the mines. In Tredegar was huge steel plant, 40k people used to work there. That’s get shut down over night. In just 50 years the town is unrecognisable. Whole streets of empty houses going to be knock down. Previously vibrant high street shining with closed places. The population declined by 90%. There is a lot of people struggle with substance abuse, poverty till today. That is handover from Thatcher decisions.

[@xtc2v]

Many US and UK steel works have closed over history. Usually by administrators following their failure to sell. Mrs Thatcher never ordered any closure as that would be interfering in private business and contrary to conservative principles. Britain should not be in the communist business mould of robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is unsuccessful for the nation as a whole,, immoral and unjust@@oooollllmmmm0987

[@user-yk9em3je6q]

There was the TV series 'Boys from the Blackstuff; a savage critique of Thatcherism.

[@dumptrump3788]

The best way to sum up the Thatcher years was "You can't build a sustainable recovery based on imported hand made Belgian chocolates & Suzuki Jeeps." But that's what happened.

[@musiqtee]

Yes, we were on a good trajectory from a societal standpoint in Norway - until we weren’t. All the same (de)regulations and privatisation has been clubbed through here, maybe lagging other neoliberal countries some years. We suffer the same austerity narrative as most across the OECD, pretty much for the same reasons. This happens broadly in every national economy bound to the USD and globally liberal finance. According to OECD last month, the inequality between 40+ and 40- aged is growing at the fastest rate here now. Social democracy is not the practice anymore, and the mentioned pension fund “invest” in i.e. property in Berlin or Athens, making prices soar above what locals can afford. Equinor will be selling gas to Germany the next 10 years, leveraging the politically constructed “market” for energy. No, this is NOT a way to “grow the economy”, whether for ecological or economic reasons! Ordinary people born after 1963 had their projected pensions CUT by parliament back in 2011. That’s how the 2008 crash brought us - and the UK, and others - into growing GDP and growing social inequality all at once…

[@jsquire5pa]

To be fair that might just be demographic decline and a loss of power to the east being suffered by all western economies

[@stumac869]

Most Western economies are in the same boat with ageing populations and public services that will become too expensive to finance via the state. Germany is the one to watch because if it fails so does the EU and it isn't looking good. Although we had Brexit it's important to us all to have successful economies across Europe, particularly Germany because we're all so interdependent.

[@musiqtee]

@@stumac869 It’s quite intriguing (and dangerous) that no matter who I discuss this with, they flat out *believe* that any problem is down to the local council, or maybe the incumbent PM. Even SMB business people operating in the global economic narrative… But, I do see a slight change in opinion, last example being Gary Stevenson (Gary’s economics). Of course, people like Stiglitz, Mearsheimer or Blyth have opined for this understanding since the early 90’s. I don’t mean to preach ‘socialism’ (though I am one…), this hits every wage-working voter across party of choice. This gets lost in our sad reality of individualism - we don’t have anything in common, the story goes… 🙄

[@BigHenFor]

Thank you for providing the nuance about Norways's economic trajectory. The only comfort is that perhaps your country can learn from ours.

[@BigHenFor]

​@@musiqteeThe ship of state is not a Mini Metro, which can turn on a sixpence. It takes a long time for people to recognise the iceberg they're about to hit.

[@buzzukfiftythree]

Thatcher’s period as PM could be described as the boom and bust era. It was typified by high mortgage interest rates (far higher than we’re experiencing nowadays), a collapse of industry, blinkered attitudes towards education etc. It resulted in high levels of selfishness. The failure to allow councils to use revenue generated by the right to buy policies in order to build new social housing was incredibly short-sighted and economically wrong - we’re still paying the price for that. The privatisation of utility and communications companies looked good on paper but the ownership of shares has now moved to large corporations and pension funds, making the wealthy even wealthier.

[@voice.of.reason]

No, Gordon Brown was the classic boom and bust era, it was built on insane spending levels and they bankrupted the country by the end of it. You have no pension then?? Everybody working today has a private pension!

[@audie-cashstack-uk4881]

But there is no such thing as free money and 5% plus isn't high its normal yes 17% is high 12 % but 4 to 8 % is normal the 0.005% money printing will only lead to hyperinflation. And the sky high masimmigration money printing house prices a monster crash and inflation period is needed and people need a wake up call to reality ex council houses for rent at 1500 a onto or selling at half a million isn't reality it's CLOWN world

[@anethnicmind8423]

Love your videos - honestly, great job. Could benefit from a summary of the key points you made either at the start or end (just my 2cents). Keep it up

[@neilmckay8649]

France is today facing a similar labour stranglehold on the government's ability to respond to changing demographics and international advancements in industries that Maggie tried to fix during the 1980s.

[@PowerControl]

At least France attracts the most investments in the whole EU

[@googlacco]

all countries are facing this as we are suffering from late stage capitalism

[@neilmckay8649]

@@googlacco surprising identification of capitalism as affected by changing demographics and international advancements in industries, other economic and social models are facing the same forces with equally challenging decisions ahead.

[@steinarvilnes3954]

@@neilmckay8649 Which countries are not capitalist though?

[@neilmckay8649]

@@steinarvilnes3954 indeed, there is capitalism is all governments. Whether socialist leaning, full blown capitalism, monarchies, or military regimes ... Time and progress marches on. Birth rates are high in some countries but these countries are rarely able to balance this with wealth, social security and balancing the books.

[@Kawasakifreak1]

Today, many of the industrial towns subject to post-war decline have not replaced those industries - the UK led this phenomenon but many other towns & cities in western economies followed with remarkably similar outcomes - irrespective of the degree of Govt support.

[@IshtarNike]

Doubt. When you say irrespective of the levels of government support, did they, for example, aim to site new growing fields of business there? Did they offer people grants to retrain? We're talking seriously providing support. Not just subsidies here and there? I mean obviously it isn't possible to keep a mining town thriving when coal is no longer profitable or environmentally viable. But there's plenty that can be done to stop the truly deep decline experienced in those regions. Governments just refuse to do so because the economic system is predicated on laissez-faire. Which in practice means supporting big businesses and multinationals and leaving normal people to the wolves.

[@fredmidtgaard5487]

Very good presentation. Thank you! I remember during the Thatcher years we all in Norway thought that it was an amazingly wrong policy. We always assumed the Brits had some kind of education or at least could think, but we were wrong then.

[@Paranoidandro1d1]

Lol, that last sentence makes me chuckle. As a left leaning brit it's depressing, but I couldn't agree more.

[@leosearle]

"Brits can think" - Good joke! Yes, you were wrong back then, and nothing has changed now. I live in this slowly disintegrating and collapsing country that once was a pretty good place to live - but now I envy Norway and if I were younger would seriously consider emigrating.

[@edwardmiller3859]

You were not wrong, don't listen to this Marxist

[@nothereandthereanywhere]

@@edwardmiller3859 What does 'Marxism' stands for? How is Norway Marxist?

[@realitywins9020]

Britain isn't a country. It's a ponzi scheme for the rich!

[@epicchess2021]

Amazing videos as always thank you. Quickly becoming one of my favourite channels, right up there with Ramin on PensionCraft. One tiny thing, hyperbole is pronounced hai-pur-buh-lee

[@What_do_I_Think]

It is a fact, that inequality in the long run destroys nations. Only by having a balanced society, economy also can thrive in the long run. In the short run, increasing inequality might work, in the long run it destroys.

[@joesmalley397]

At the end of the day, before Thatcher the lights were going out every week and there were that many strikes even the bodies were building up in warehouses. At one point the entire British Leyland group went on strike because someone was asked to change a bulb in the canteen. Our industry was a complete mess, we had a 96% tax rate for the wealthy (which is why they left) and she set the tone for Eurosceptism which is this very day being proven right (thank god we didn't take the Euro). It's also worth mentioning that Labour wanted to give up the Falklands which is appalling when the population there are British subjects and are the original inhabitants. There is a reason she won three landslides. It's also worth mentioning that that square mile in central London pays 10% of our entire tax income and therefore it is worth having and bleating over inequality is a little short-sighted and perhaps even a touch of jealousy. I do agree that the difference between "private" and public ownership for major groups such as water is negatable as fundamentally these companies are practically publicly-owned in private clothing.

[@peteroneill2991]

Balance of payments (BOP) ONS figures. The Wilson government (L) plus 604 million pounds sterling was the last UK government to run a BOP surplus during it’s time in power i.e., we sold more than we purchased as a country. Heath (con) minus 3660M, Callaghan (L) minus 4330M, the Heath and Callaghan governments were in power during a major world recession Thatcher (Con) minus 72,000M. That record loss despite the first four years 1980,81,82 and 83 the UK had a surplus of 8339M of course that was before her policies destroyed our manufacturing base. Major (con) minus 46,563M

[@terryhughes1355]

she went to war to get re-elected

[@s.harrisali8302]

40 years history summarized in such short time, which helps understand today's Uk issues so clearly now.❤well done

[@AaronBowersable]

Summed my whole life and my family's life in a nut shell. all these changes majorly affected many families.

[@kevinu.k.7042]

Thank you for covering this. I lived through that time, they were painful years. Some single industry towns in the North had their single main employer shut down with over 90% unemployment and rocketing suicide rates. What made it worse was that France was subsidising certain steel sectors knowing that Thatcher would let the U.K. competitors go to the wall. They played Thatcher. Reagan, her friend and member of her husbands trading consortium, famously said to her. I would not run such a monetarist experiment on America. Again, I tgink, we have been subjected to the Tory ideologically driven Tory model. We desperately need mor technocrat input at the Exchequer level.

[@jacobfield4848]

1. Thatcher inherited a recession that started in 1978, it did not start under Thatcher at all. It was the 3rd recession in the 1970's. 2. Thatcher lowered inflation from 14% to 4 %, making everyone richer. Thatcher also cut debt. 3. Thatcher kept NHS spending at 4%, it had dipped below 4% under the previous government. Inflation was lower under Thatcher so NHS spending was much higher than in the 70's. 4. Under Thatcher Car production increased from 1.2 million a year to 1.6 million a year. From 1968 to 1978 car production fell from 2.2 million to 1.2 million per year.

[@josecipriano3048]

I bet that the thousands of people who lost their jobs due to her policies were really happy about low inflation.

[@jacobfield4848]

She inherited a recession, so again you are wrong. @@josecipriano3048

[@Tel-cl2zz]

if the tories hadn't of spent nearly 80yrs overturning what the WW2 generation voted for (the NHS and the nationalisation of key industries and services) this country would be in a much better position now. But Thatcher sold our oil,gas,water,housing,buses,coaches,railways,ports,ferries,airports,british airways and so much more to her rich friends! Changing the tax system to favour the rich (taxes cut by over 40%) in the 1980s hasn't helped either, lets go back to the tax system where we had millionaires but no billionaires and when the gap between the rich and the poor in this country was the smallest in history. The right keep banging on about WW2 and telling us that they were the greatest generation, (now they're nearly all dead) but conveniently forget that in the 70s they were calling those union members who had fought in WW2 the enemy of the people! Thatcher was best friends with a mass murderer (Pinochet) and a paedophile/necrophile (Savile) which proves what she was like, let alone starting a war/conflict with Argentina to keep herself in power. People that are poor and vote tory only prove that the education cuts that tory governments always bring in, definitely work!

[@Taz6688]

We need a proper investigation into how the UK has really managed, people blame a benefits culture and lazy work-shy people living the high life, forgetting many on benefits are working, and the government allows employers to pay low wages and then ask the taxpayer to top them up. We buy cheap goods from around the world but everyone avoid answering the true cost, workers paid a bowl of rice a day, goods shipped around the world using the dirtiest fuel out, or flying in time critical food and filling the air with pollutants, everyone wants to go green, but don't want to give up cheap holidays around the world, but god forbid you put the wrong item in the wrong bin. People on low or zero hours contracts are not getting out of the housing crisis, the system is controlled by a few elite running around in 50k electric cars, who want the rest of us to walk or used the non-existent public transport.

[@boydovens4180]

I always remember my college teacher stating that Thatcher had put all her eggs in one basket, she saw Nuclear as the way ahead , and put a pittance into renewable technology ie , Wind , Solar and Sea . If she had made more of an investment we would probably have been world leaders in Green technology and renewables . The question did she ruin the UK , For some people they had a wealthy time , for the millions left , misery and heartache .

[@royvirafayet6687]

Nuclear has always been the way ahead. Nuclear is now just 15% of total, down from 30% in 1998. Wind and solar is what makes energy expensive in uk, to the point where steel manufacturing is shifting overseas

[@peterclarke7240]

The right-to-buy scheme was the single most destructive law we've ever experienced since the 2nd world war. Our councils, prior to this, got a HUGE amount of their income from, essentially, being landlords. Because of that, they were MORE decentralised then than they are now, because they weren't begging for government grants in order to provide essential services, and did not NEED council tax. Indeed, the Tories introduced Council tax, essentially a poll tax based not on your ability to pay but on where you lived, in an attempt to shore up the damage done to council finances by the Right-to-buy scheme which forced them to sell their properties without providing them with the monetary means of replacing them. On top of that, Prior to the Right-to-Buy. rents were effectively controlled because private landlords were in COMPETITION against councils, rather than owning a monopoly which enabled them to dictate what the rental market could afford to pay. That's why rents have now spiralled out of all control, and anyone unable to afford a deposit and a mortgage is doomed to pay a stupid amount of their income to pay someone else's mortgage. which in turn prevents them from SAVING for a deposit in order to get them out of the cycle of forced impoverishment. Thatcher and her ilk, and Friedman's psychopathic economic model, destroyed this country, and will continue to destroy it for generations to come. Never forgive, never forget, and always urinate on her grave whenever you get the chance.

[@mark4lev]

I don’t know if ‘right to buy’ can be a good or bad thing. Depends which side of the fence you’re sitting. The elephant in the room? Immigration. I remember Looking at solid terrace houses in the midlands which were for sale @ £20,000. You couldn’t give them away. The year? 2000. A time in between two ages. Buy to let mortgages were introduced in 1996 but no one even noticed. Two things happened. Browns destruction of private pensions forced investors to look at housing, at the same time cheap credit exploded and Eastern Europeans flooded into the uk. Funny coincidence eh? . It’s immigration that has ruined the housing market for our youngsters. The other things that happened were not thatchers fault. It wasn’t her fault that a Vw golf/ bmw3 series was light years ahead of an Austin allegro. Talk of unrinating on graves is infantile

[@jakemorgan9275]

@@mark4lev Immigration is just a scapegoat so that voters don't notice the systemic cause of the housing crisis. Housing has been used to bolster the economy for too long. The higher the prices, the greater the tax revenue and especially the higher the interest payments ordinary people have to pay banks. Nowadays, you need two decent salaries to pay the bank huge monthly payments for 25 years. It's a trap. The irony is, as house prices rise, homeowners feel wealthier but actually, they are poorer. When you sell your house, you need to find another home to live in and your financial gains are meaningless.

[@Leffe123]

A lot of countries did simmilar privatisation schemes but uk seems to be the one suffering the most. I wounder why? In my humble opinion its a cultural thing with the uk...

[@tonydoggett7627]

The class system, with English accents as the identifier. No such thing in Australia.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Privatization (and deregulation) hasn't been all that successful in other countries either.

[@Tel-cl2zz]

if the tories hadn't of spent nearly 80yrs overturning what the WW2 generation voted for (the NHS and the nationalisation of key industries and services) this country would be in a much better position now. But Thatcher sold our oil,gas,water,housing,buses,coaches,railways,ports,ferries,airports,british airways and so much more to her rich friends! Changing the tax system to favour the rich (taxes cut by over 40%) in the 1980s hasn't helped either, lets go back to the tax system where we had millionaires but no billionaires and when the gap between the rich and the poor in this country was the smallest in history. The right keep banging on about WW2 and telling us that they were the greatest generation, (now they're nearly all dead) but conveniently forget that in the 70s they were calling those union members who had fought in WW2 the enemy of the people! Thatcher was best friends with a mass murderer (Pinochet) and a paedophile/necrophile (Savile) which proves what she was like, let alone starting a war/conflict with Argentina to keep herself in power. People that are poor and vote tory only prove that the education cuts that tory governments always bring in, definitely work!

[@favioar]

I'm seeing the future of Argentina as our new president's thinking is totally related to Thatcher's policies. The problems Argentina is facing now are quite similar to what you explained on 1970s UK. Even the working class voted Javier Milei as a result of inflation and the impossibility to work properly due to constant conflict. I wish our politicians would watch your video to take notice and provide a more sensible approach to solving our current situation, but as far as I can see, the madness for totally unregulated free market haa taken over. Only time will tell.

[@jakeblair4215]

Privitisation hasn't helped anyone except shareholder profits at the expense of the tax payer. Rail sail mail. It's not hard to have a semi socialist hands off state without the involvement of private capital. Just another example of the failed Tory free market ideology, and squandering Scottish energy revenues. Little wonder Scotland wants to go it alone. Even at today's reserves and bbl price we could still have half that Norways wealth fund for future use rather than Westminster wasteage. Approx 500bn over 20 years at 65bbl oil alone. Add in gas water electricity renewables and we'll do fine without Westminster and England consuming it all at all our expense. 2019 oil revenues at 65bbl alone m, Scotland sends 60mn per day south of the border. Recent analysis shows Scotland sends 90bn south and receives 50bn "as a grant" to run it's country quite successfully so far. Food for thought

[@harambae7014]

Those tax rates in the 70s are appalling. No wonder there was so much support for slashing them.

[@PMMagro]

The UK was in dire straits in the 1970s. Even more so than other western countries. It was in a way a terrible mess to start out with. Sure you can say you improved it a lot... But the ideological cursader mindset got the better of her, she clearly was a very strong and talented leader. Just to much of a crusader/fanatic. That way of doing it makes to many people dislike whatever you say/do wheter it is good, worthwhile or not. I am not British or in Britain. Also not a right wing voter. But it is obvioust to me she was very strong and did see that the UK truly was down a hole and just COULD NOT stay "as is". Sadly as with all crusaders the fight just never ends peacefully.

[@MetalRocksMe.]

The tories are the smash and grab party. Smash everything up and grab as much money while you’re doing it. 😒

[@manufacturedconsent7850]

Well the ideology is supposed to be less government interference, fewer regulations more freedom for individuals and businesses. Everything suffers from expediency and can be abused in the end, but so can policies and ideologies from the Left, even more so. Be carful what you wish for.

[@janetmalcolm6191]

Well my father used to say Labour gives and then Tories take it away. It is never more true than today. 14 tears ago people were much better off even the poor. Now nobody seems better off except the super rich.

[@MetalRocksMe.]

@@janetmalcolm6191 I was recently saying something similar to my twin. I said when we were kids and the tories were in charge it was really really hard to make ends meet, my mother struggled. After labour came in things got better we no longer struggled Like we did under Tory. Now they’re back in power and have been for too long, I seems like the clock has been turned back and people are living like they did in the 1990’s but this time it’s a lot worse.

[@josecipriano3048]

​@@manufacturedconsent7850fewer regulations and more freedom for the wealthy to plunder everything.

[@johnsshed995]

What the Tory party have done to this country in the last 15 years would make a Viking berserker blush.

[@jondickinson2864]

Whilst a sovereign wealth fund would have been a better way to take advantage of the north sea windfall than what happened, Norway is not a good comparison as it has about a 10th of the population and wasnt in post industrial decline. A uk wealth fund would never have gone as far.

[@user-fq4sy9cc2o]

But it would have worked for Scotland

[@sweeepzone5155]

Let them have their utopian fantasy

[@SnakePliskin762]

​@@user-fq4sy9cc2o Scotland has a far bigger population of junkies,alcho''s and teenage mothers to feed and house than Norway infact Glasgow itself has.

[@scotthendry6298]

Our fkn oil and England hv stolen it. And yet we should be grateful for a handout

[@peteroneill2991]

But a trillion is nice to have in the bank.

[@kenharris5390]

When the lease for the North Sea oil fields came up for renewal Norway decided to extend theirs, Thatcher had an election approaching and promised tax cuts, so she sold Britain's share. If she had retained the lease we would have a society akin to Norway today, along with a Sovereign Wealth Fund. Short-term gain for long-term pain.

[@eljay5009]

On the sale of council houses. That was actually a Labour proposal in their 1970 manifesto - and only happened under Thatcher because Labour were defeated that year.

[@peteroneill2991]

Councils had the ability to sell some houses since 1936, 45,000 were sold in 1972. The difference with Thatcher was councils could spend that money on new housing which they did and millions were built annually.

[@eljay5009]

@@peteroneill2991 Not millions. Even at it's peak in 1953, there were only 250,000 being built per year and aside from a couple of spurts in the mid 1960s and mid 1970s - was in decline from that point. When Thatcher's government got in, the number of council houses being built annually was around 1/3rd of what it was in the peak of 1953. It didn't recover once New Labour got in either. Labour had 13 years to reverse course - but didn't, so the question is - why?

[@peteroneill2991]

@@eljay5009 Duh! You are correct the average annual house build in England and Wales during the sixties was 130,000. In 1976 it was still 124,000, 1980 77,000 . Then nada everything stopped after patient zero. As for New Labour I think Thatcher summed it up best Blair was my greatest achievement.

[@eljay5009]

@@peteroneill2991 I guess the point is - the building of council houses was already in serious decline. Just between 1975 and 1979 - the number of council houses being built more or less halved. Did Thatcher's government actually cause it to flatline, or was it simply an inevitable consequence of events that were already unfolding?

[@peteroneill2991]

@@eljay5009 124,000 in 1976 only 6,000 less than the average for the sixties. The world had suffered a massive recession that ended the post war golden era for many countries the UK was badly hit. House building takes many years from planning to construction so this global financial crisis most likely had an adverse effect on house building. Still 77,000 is better than zero.

[@alexandermccarthy]

As someone who grew up in London in the late 70s i can tell you the net results of Thatcher's policies were to gut any chance of opportunity unless you came from a family with money. Unemployment skyrocketed,, jobs were non existent, and dole payments were 60 quid every two weeks. It was a horrific time to come of age!

[@Knifeys]

Austerity has been mostly idelogical too, how many stupid economic idelogies do the torries have to push until people get the message that they're not on your side.

[@abody499]

everything that humans do is ideological. your post says you don't understand ideology

[@Knifeys]

Trust me bro, that turd I took this morning was purely ideological in nature. The most ideological of poops you could take, I suppose. It is, like you say, simply in everthing we do. I took a moment afterwards to admire the pure and unadulturated "shitting ideological peak" i'd just experienced. Yo bois we found the Plato of 2024 right here. Got any more gems for us lowbies and plebs? @@abody499

[@gm006b4]

Very fair and the huge miss was the Norwegian example. In my opinion the financial sector esp the city seized an opportunity, manipulated our politics and ever since have been too big to be allowed to fail. Look at their effect on the beautiful Channel Island of Jersey 🙁

[@abdelkaioumbouaicha]

📝 Summary of Key Points: 📌 Thatcher's economic policies aimed to address issues such as inflation, industrial strikes, and economic stagnation through radical free-market policies. 🧐 However, these policies led to a deeper recession, a surge in unemployment, and a decline in the manufacturing sector. 🚀 Income inequality rose, the north-south divide widened, and resentment towards the establishment grew, contributing to the Brexit vote. 🚀 Tax cuts for high earners and corporations resulted in unemployment and reduced benefits for low-income workers. 🚀 Privatization raised funds but missed opportunities for infrastructure investment and retaining ownership of privatized industries. 🚀 Successes included reduced tariffs through Britain's entry into the single market and the growth of the financial sector, but regional inequality increased. 💡 Additional Insights and Observations: 💬 "Thatcher remained steadfast in her belief in monetarism and reducing the power of trade unions." 📊 Output in the manufacturing sector fell by 20% and unemployment reached its highest level since the Great Depression. 🌐 The UK missed an opportunity to invest in infrastructure and retain part ownership of privatized industries, unlike countries like Norway. 📣 Concluding Remarks: Thatcher's economic policies had mixed successes, with some positive outcomes such as reduced tariffs and the growth of the financial sector. However, they also led to a deeper recession, increased income inequality, and a widening north-south divide. The video suggests that a more balanced approach combining private enterprise and public ownership could have yielded better results. Generated using TalkBud

[@emiliajojo5703]

If only trade unions had a seat on the board of administration,to make real strikes more or less unnecessary.

[@PrexXyx]

This is the case in many German enterprises. They have seats in BoDs, SBs etc. Strikes are still as frequent if not more frequent as everywhere else.

[@sejanus855]

@@PrexXyx Comparing ourselves with the UK and France that"s not true, most strikes are only related to our train network workers, just that they strike regularly lmao. The DB being partially owned by our state also gives those strikes another twist. I wouldnt know of many or even any big strikes at all apart from the one mentioned, because our workers rights are pretty good and our unions handle most of their business succesfully enough it seems to not pop up in the news or in big waves of public anger.

[@DigitalNomadOnFIRE]

Unions don't need to exist in a democracy, they just ruin everything and make everyone poorer, except union fat cat bosses, which the unions exist to make rich.

[@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp]

They had the chance to do this but rejected it. "In place of strife" in 1968 was the last chance to prevent the strife of the 1970s. I personally bitterly lament what Thatcherism did to Britain but the trade unions really did blow their own feet off

[@tropics8407]

Unless the trade unions are looney communists like in the 70s 🤦‍♂️

[@franciscouderq1100]

Interesting overview recalling of the period

[@htlow3598]

And what exactly an insight have you brought into the discussion?😮

[@planesrift]

It definitely sucks for most people.

[@adrianturner655]

Its much better now you are leaving the slides up for longer to read. Thanks. And, a good blog!

[@francisravenscroft-dw6gi]

Thatcher achieved the goal of giving more wealth to people that were already wealthy. Johnson and Truss wanted the same thing- and both meet the same end end as Thatcher- they where removed in political coups by the very Tories that had benefited by their elections as Prime Minister. Thatcher's ideological fixations have been seized on by both Truss and Sunak- the issue again is generating massive resentment in the electorate that neither of these have been elected through 'popular general election' Lets hope that the UK electorate have enough historical vision to give the Tories a historical general election defeat- that will see Thatcherism consigned to the economic and historical dustbin.

[@jim-es8qk]

That's not actually true. She allowed working people to buy their houses, shares, and start businesses. She made them rich. It was capitalism for the masses.

[@chrysalis4126]

@@jim-es8qk she sold off half the social housing, laid the foundations for the housing crisis we have today.

[@francisravenscroft-dw6gi]

The houses that you speak of where already 'owned' by the people that lived in them because they had assured indefinite tenancy rights, those tenants could also engage into ' mutual exchanges' to move to other areas to for family or employment reasons. The British housing stock allowed working class people to live in ' reasonable housing' at affordable rents. Thatcher sold what these people had already paid for through a life time of taxation. The end result of the right to buy scheme is where the UK is now as massive under investment in social housing and exploitative private landlords. Thatcher did indeed 'return to victorian values- mass exploitation of an ' underclass' As the young UK citizens that are forced to work in 'zero hours work contrats' living in an appalling' hmo' with mould on the walls. @@jim-es8qk

[@francisravenscroft-dw6gi]

How in you view, did Thatcher make 'working class people rich? The poll tax,? The doubling of VAT on goods and services the doubling of base rates ( that the coast of loans to working class folk btw... @@jim-es8qk

[@stubadds6890]

lol - Thatcher left office in 1990, the housing boom didn’t take off until the late 90’s under Labour, plenty of time for them or the multiple governments since to have changed policies and built more social housing.

[@robertprice2148]

Excellent presentation, throwing light onto a mythologised time.

[@davidreece1642]

Housing demand increasing ,perhaps not surprising with an increase in the UK population of 11M thanks to Bliar.

[@1951GL]

Don't forget, the Greens would have closed every coal mine given the chance. The 1984 strike happened because no one wanted to buy the stuff in the quantities being produced. Agree, many communities destroyed becoming elderly dumping grounds and youngster drug dens.

[@jamesandrew62]

Believing own hyperbole is a very accurate observation.very accurate work, "much appreciated". Comparable to the Japanese wonder economy experiment of just in time delivery, "over efficiency" to its own detrement.

[@marcus.H]

7:41 I always find it strange when people use words which they don't know how to pronounce

[@floydchusset3143]

off topic but i feel Saving for a market slump is also a bad idea. There are different perspectives on recessions and depressions; we cannot always expect significant rewards; and taking risks is preferable to doing nothing. The bottom line is that by diversifying your portfolio and making sensible judgments, you will accomplish exceptional outcomes. In just 5 months, my portfolio's raw earnings increased by $608k.

[@ryanthompson8256]

As a beginner, it's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. I'm guided by a widely known Advisor.

[@majidcoper]

Interesting, please how can i get more information? i don't want to remain out of ignorance, i really need to stack up this 2024.

[@ryanthompson8256]

LAURA GRACE ABELS’’ GOOGLE the name

[@Molloy1951]

Extraordinarily thoughtful and balanced video. Thank you

[@WBO-lp3cp]

I am still amazed today, that certain politicians all over the world still refer to things like Tatcherism, Reaganism and Trickle down economics as viable solutions while these are the very policies that brought us to the dystopian inequality of wealth that we experience today.

[@sauermaischeyahoo7834]

Mrs. T. had to raise interest rates, because Paul Volker was raising interest rates aggressively in the USA. If the Bank of England hadn't matched the rises in the Federal Funds Rate, sterling would have devalued against the US dollar. Since oil is priced in US dollars, devaluation of sterling against the US dollar would have raised the price of oil in sterling terms. Since oil is used in every aspect of the economy, inflation would have taken off.

[@purplerisc]

I am continously impressed by the quality of your videos and the high caliber analysis of difficult subjects. Always an enjoyable and fascinating watch. Thank you for another episode of top notch content.

[@JM-ws6ku]

Housing unaffordablity has nothing to do with selling off council housing. It has more to do with mass immigration since 1997, along with buy-to-let mortgages.

[@Outlaw7502]

How do you expect we build more houses when there is a large shortage of workers in the construction sector? I don’t think immigration is the problem, but perhaps our current immigration system is. We need hundreds of thousands of immigrants, but we should also ensure they’re coming with the skills we need.

[@JM-ws6ku]

@@Outlaw7502 British people have only up to 2 children on average so there is no population expansion. The only reason that Britain's population expands is because of mass immigration on net. So new houses would only go to housing immigrants.

[@Outlaw7502]

@@JM-ws6ku but a declining population presents its own problems, especially when our population is ageing. We need the younger workforce to sustain that. If the UK population isn’t having enough children, immigration is the only answer. At least we’re lucky enough to be an attractive destination , other countries aren’t.

[@JM-ws6ku]

@@Outlaw7502 For the sake of argument I will accept that immigration is needed to fill job roles (other opinions are available). Why does immigration then vastly exceed the amount needed to keep the population stable?

[@Outlaw7502]

@@JM-ws6ku In 2004, our population was 60 million. 20 years later its increased by 7 million. I wouldn’t say that’s a vastly unsustainable increase over 20 years. We’re getting more immigration right now because, since brexit and covid, there’s been a huge increase in the number of job vaccines from sectors where a lot of training is needed. It takes years to train people for these jobs, so immigration is often the more immediate solution. That’s probably why numbers are so high for the time being (though they’re predicted to fall). Even with these high numbers coming in, our birth rate is only predicted to decrease as we further develop. In the coming decades, I think this will just offset the decline of our population. I think that’s a good thing. As a developed economy in Europe, we kind of stand out in our ability to keep our country attractive for migrants. Declining birth rates are going to be a massive problem. In 20 years, governments are going to dream that they had the same level of attractiveness for their countries.

[@IMBlakeley]

It can summed up as selling of all the capital assets.That's the very definition of short termism the sole economic policy the tories have/had and new labour were not much better.

[@DanielHewsonPianist]

Under Thatcher net immigration was on average around 4000 per year, meanwhile she built on average 41,343 council houses, ie 10 per net migrant. Today’s equivalent would be the government building 7 million council per year which is utterly impossible, hence housing crisis. Also under Thatcher government debt fell & didn’t have to go cap in hand to the IMF as under labour in the 1970s, the tax cuts Thatcher implemented actually led to a rise in revenue for the exchequer instead of people moving abroad to avoid excessive tax rates of the 70s.

[@mfd8346]

lmao if they had followed Singapores economic and social policies they would be a powerhouse. RIP Great Britian Good analysis and presentation

[@ciaranReal]

At what?

[@Dunbar0740]

"Hyperbole" is pronounced "high-per-bol-ee". I made the same mispronunciation for the best part of 30 years before I was corrected. It's a common error of the autodidact.

[@josephbailey4249]

Do you mean corrected by some smart alec ? Why take any notice of such pedantry. Or are you one of those people who correct someone else's enunciation of the city of Paris as "Paree' ? I have spoken the word hyperbole very rarely because it is usually written on the page and not spoken, for at least the last 50 years in the way I want to, and not because some linguistic schoolmarm tells me the it should be otherwise.

[@Dunbar0740]

@@josephbailey4249I I took notice because of a desire to be taken seriously. Small errors in speech can, and do, lead to negative judgments, particularly by point scoring political opponents and their audiences. The less ammunition handed to them, the better. I wish people weren't so judgemental, but, they are, generally speaking. The advice I offered above was intended to help fellow travelers, not to belittle anyone.

[@josephbailey4249]

Having read your initial post in the light of what you now say , I accept that you did not mean to be condescending , However I don't think you are giving away any hostages to fortune if you pronounce words in the way you want to. And while all I say is subject to a test of reasonableness. Isn't it a democratic thing to do to to what you want (within reason) and isn't that a good thing ?@@Dunbar0740

[@peterfireflylund]

While you are at it you should mention that the stress goes on the second syllable.

[@johnbannister9212]

Ruin or save? As a civil engineer, it did both. Two well respected UK degrees, But without her cherished MBA I was out of work and forced to leave the UK. That saved me since I still could not afford to live in the UK and given its condition why should I want to?

[@monkfishkilla]

Thank you very much indeed!!! I’m hopeless at economics and have seen a wee glimmer of hope in understanding a bit thanks to your efforts

[@bereal6590]

Good presentation. Thatcher did 2 good things, the single market and the deal she struck(the discount). Everything else was a disaster. She didn't understand economics or long term effects, she wouldn't listen to anyone and she was so wounded by her own mother that she didn't care about people and a country is it's people

[@therealjag]

A person driven by their own ego and lack of self esteem is always doomed to failure

[@nickrougier8014]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Full of supposition , presumption and above all nonesense

[@myoctobersymphony4446]

She inherited a disaster. Everything else you say is not true.

[@bereal6590]

@@therealjag 100% agree with you

[@bereal6590]

@@nickrougier8014 so you couldn't prove me wrong, you took to insults. I'm guessing you're well off, in your 60's a Tory and never lived anywhere, where there was community

[@buy.to.let.britain]

what is the incentive to save the state ? all the wealth is in the hands of a few.

[@FridayNightFilmsCA]

The state and democracy are the insurance payments the wealthy pay to maintain their wealth and status quo. It's why the welfare state was created only after the lasie faire economic policies and and the nightwatch state (the opposite of a welfare state) led to the 1st and 2nd world wars. You had millions of trained, traumatized and hardened and recently demobilized men. That's when capital and the modern aristocracy dramatically increased their payments of insurance (tax) to build a welfare state to protect that status quo from revolutionary acts. Their descendants - like the "3rd generation curse" - are tearing it down because spoiled and drunk on their own illconcieved ideologies of their own (largely inherited) success.

[@buy.to.let.britain]

and that money printing.@@FridayNightFilmsCA

[@buy.to.let.britain]

i think on the contrary. it is the formation of welfare thats designed to create a false obligation to the state. when there should be only independence and self responsibility. and a tiny government.@@FridayNightFilmsCA

[@lawLess-fs1qx]

my father was very bitter when the union called a strike when management changed the free custard creams to Rich tea. in the summer of discontent (77).

[@janetmalcolm6191]

My husband was a welder. He was on sight. Off sight. Continually. Because of the unions. As soon as we got straight financially I was writing to Gas and Electric about a payment plan yet again. They must have a file on my letters alone! Out of work just before Xmas a few times. Yeah we had it easy. I don't think.

[@colincampbell4261]

The energy crisis now demonstrates how we should have kept and invested in our coal mining industry. We could still be producing at least 25% to 30% of our energy needs and reduced our energy imports. The dash for gas was very short sighted.

[@user-pf2jg1ks8l]

Well articulated , enjoyed this video . Keep up the good work

[@wyntog]

I really hate the narrative that Thatcher was brilliant with the economy. Any government would do well economically if they suddenly discovered a shit load of oil.

[@voice.of.reason]

It's not a narrative. Its a pure fact. A narrative is a stupid lefty word anyway.

[@wyntog]

@@voice.of.reason huh?

[@myoctobersymphony4446]

The oil was discovered before Thatcher.

[@wyntog]

@@myoctobersymphony4446 Yes, but it was only just about up to speed when she became PM, and then she introduced the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 which sold off the energy industry for short term gain.

[@davidallen1418]

For me I think when Thatcher allowed both wages to count towards a mortgage was the death nail for UK family life.

[@arandmorgan]

I lived on Cowley. Wonderful road in 2009, not sure what it's like now though. It was very bohemian back then.

[@michaelandrews6786]

Neither, she changed it from Maunfacturing based to Banking & Insurance. But what that did was transfer wealth from a medium size working class base to a much smaller upper middle class base, concentrated in the south where it has remained, infact the gap between the have and have not has gotten bigger and that is the issue today. Thatcher is responsible for much of the issues in todays UK economy, but the biggest problems have been caused by Cameron and Osborne's austerity measures, not investing in the UK'S infostructure while interest rates were at an all time low, and the running down of public services.

[@waynecoxdrums]

Great video. I'm amazwd how many people still idolise Thatcher and Reagan.

[@rat_king-]

You can lose by the unions, or lose by thatcher/ reagan. There is no way you can win. You can save some regions, or fail the entire country. or suffer some regions, and partially help the enitre country. You can never win. That is the post ww2 situation for the UK.

[@daftdigital]

Because they swallowed the cool aid l

[@rat_king-]

@@daftdigital as you swallow the cool aid on unions.

[@myoctobersymphony4446]

I'm amazed how many people still demonise them.

[@voice.of.reason]

I'm amazed how little people are left who believe Maggie T was bad, even people in the North have woken up, you should stop watching stupid videos like this

[@deadwalking100]

An insightful analysis, I feel you have revealed many opportunities were missed. Your anecdote about your neighbor wanting Thatcher to rain in the unions, quiet telling, I think a shift has occurred . We have had over a decade of Tory rule, someone keeps voting them in.

[@broadleyboy2]

The Uk obsession with house ownership seeing housing as an investment rather than just somewhere to live. It has led to high rents and speculation . High rents and high mortgages have translated to wages being uncompetitive and birth rates falling . Industry faces lack of investment and a cycle of low interest rates followed by high rates to suppress inflation .

[@laupeter4594]

Just trying to look for a scapegoat now that the Uk economy isnt doing so great

[@xtc2v]

"Failure to support those made redundant". I don't think so. Dole or sickness benefit was much easier to get in Thatchers time than it is today. The dole was income based so those who earned more got more. Miners were some of the best paid workers in the country. The benefits office didn't hassle the claimants constantly and sickness/disability benefit was not subject to tough private sector annual tests. Generous courses were available some lasting a whole academic year with full benefit payments for those that wanted to retrain. Try and find anything like that now! Today Universal credit is means tested so miners with savings would not get anything

[@afreeman1980]

Virtually every major issue we have now can be attributed to Thatcher or Blair. Nobody is trying to rectify any of these issues so subsequent priministers are also culpable.

[@jackjhmc820]

Even local governments in China hired venture capitalists and invested in companies that went IPO and made 10 times plus returns and used them for subsidies for local educational and medical systems. Free market like the stock market is great only if you have invested in the market. So if UK raised the money to actually invest in US stock market like Norway, like owning 1 % of Microsoft, or Apple, it would have so much money now. It s ridiculous the government bickers about less than a hundred billions when you have trillion dollar companies today.

[@Athanael777]

Was waiting for this analysis, great presentation as usual.

[@johnburrows3385]

We basically pissed our oil money up the wall . I was too young to vote in 1979 by a few days. sadly . I thought Thatcher was wrong at the time and hated the woman for her policies.

[@olivtomat]

Great analysis video! Keep it up!