this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2026
7 points (88.9% liked)
AskHistorians
1387 readers
20 users here now
QUESTIONS
- Be civil.
- Be specific.
- Historical topic must be from at least 20 years ago.
- Post questions in the title. Elaboration is for the text box.
RESPONSES
- Be civil.
- Provide comprehensive answers.
- Please provide primary and secondary sources upon good faith request. Tertiary sources, like Wikipedia, are not accepted.
askhistorians is a community for academic answers to questions about history. Polls, opinions, bigotry, grammar pedantry, and personal insults will be removed.
Be sure to check out our sister community at: !askscience@lemmy.world
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thatcher inherited a very poor economy. The end of Empire had left Britain stumbling to find its place in the world. The decline in heavy industry was particularly devastating, as it affected the trade defecit and caused rampant inflation and mass unemployment.
Trade unions were particularly powerful in the 1970s, and were able to leverage an escalating series of concessions from government that were simply unsustainable at any time, let alone during economic crisis.
There was also a perception of social breakdown, increased crime.
Thatcher was ambitious. Her time in office would see Britain undertake radical reforms in almost every sector, including a refocusing of the economy away from manufacturing and towards a service economy.
Those who lost out were largely from company towns where employment relied on a single business or industry such as mining towns. Once those businesses closed, there was nothing to replace them. On the other end, the City of London was becoming the world financial capital, and a new class of people emerged, working in finance, throwing a lot of cash around on extravagant cars, houses and lifestyles.
The first trained scientist to become PM, Thatcher was goal oriented, and didn’t have the capacity to consider emotional responses to her policies. Earlier, as Education Secretary, she had been tasked with making vast budget cuts. One thing she did was remove free school milk for a certain age group. While the department had been spending more on milk than textbooks, Thatcher had failed to consider emotional responses. It was a big controversy and she needed police escorts to visit schools.
Transplant this to a whole economy, and you get great turbulence. Unions were standing in the way of progress, so she fought the unions, eventually outlawing closed shops. These skirmishes resulted in rioting and violence throughout the 80s. Cutbacks to public services led to anger. Privatisation led some to believe they were being sold out to boost the new financial industry.
There was no plan to assist those who lost out in the changes, and Thatcher believed people should help themselves. She was stubborn, and ready to fight hard for her policies.
So she became reviled in the communities she destroyed, as well as anyone left wing who saw her worldview as deeply selfish. The decline of deference post-war led to punk music and more outspoken treatment by satirists and the creative industries.
It's fascinating for the stuff for common people is always "unsustainable," but there's always money for people who already have money.
Don’t forget the bit where she allowed her government to arm paramilitary death squads in Northern Ireland.
To be honest, that was a selling point for many who feared the terror threat on the mainland. Similarly, the Falklands war Ironically strengthened her support, despite her doing absolutely everything to avoid conflict with Argentina.
Great summary
I think more about mining strikes and hunger and northern Ireland would be helpful. She was ambitious in her policies regarding restructuring. It wasn't just the emotional side she didn't consider. It was the human side. The poverty, unemployment, deaths etc.