3 ms·
Britain was bankrupt after the Second World War (and in hock to the US for billions of dollars as well). As part of the attempt to rebuild the country a consens
by rahoulb 14y ago
Britain was bankrupt after the Second World War (and in hock to the US for billions of dollars as well). As part of the attempt to rebuild the country a consensus was formed that the British state would step in and help people - hence the NHS, hence free school milk (as rickets was a very common disease). The unions had too much power for much of that time, but British industry also had terrible management practices so I would put both "sides" as bad as each other.
But while Thatcher shook things up and modernised many parts of the economy, she did it in an extremely divisive and many would say callous way - by devastating communities (especially in the north of England), destroying British manufacturing and putting unemployment up to 3 million (with millions more on disability, to make the jobless figures look better).
And these are legacies that still live on today - where I grew up there are still houses with barbed wire between neighbours who have lived there for years - as a result of the miner's strike. The north is still significantly poorer than the south, with much higher unemployment. The current government has just pushed through an extremely painful reform of disability allowance that appears to be punishing the genuinely disabled as much as the "skivers". And in Scotland she is so despised that you can't even say her name in public after shutting down much of the country's industry and taking North Sea oil revenue down south.
For the most part, nowadays, the question isn't whether the reforms were needed, but whether they had to be done so painfully and whether the benefits of those reforms were shared fairly. There is definitely a north-south divide within the country on that.
- omegaham 14y ago(American here - I have a basic grasp of the events, but I don't know the entire picture) Was there a less painful way to do it? From what I've read, Britain was in some really serious trouble. I wouldn't say that they were at Greece's level of stagnation and financial trouble, but they were definitely hurting. People were going to get hurt regardless of what policy was implemented, and I think it was better to get it all done in one harsh, nasty blow than to slowly cut away the problems and create decades of uncertainty.
- rahoulb 14y agoI honestly don't know about the economics of it. But threatening to leave a whole city (Liverpool) to rot was typical - and the fact that she is still sung about at football matches over 20 years after she was forced out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x-4FJcnX0i8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x...) shows how deep the scars run. Some people think she was involved in a class war - I don't, I think she honestly believed in social mobility (unlike the current government which is rule by the rich for the rich). But she did devastate huge parts of the country and just regarded it as a fact, not even something to be regretted.
- jrabone 14y agoHaving grown up near Liverpool in the 80's, frankly I wished they'd just bulldoze the place. Does no one remember Derek Hatton and the loony left?
- matthewjhughes 14y agoYou should have a look at Liverpool now. It's doing really well for itself. We have a vibrant startup and technology scene, and the city center has been drastically transformed since 2008 when it was Capital Of Culture. I can honestly see it becoming the San Francisco of the UK.
- TheAnimus 14y agoGenuine question, have you ever been to San Francisco?