Burnham-on-Thatcher
Andy Burnham has criticized what he calls “the deindustrialization, the draining away of economic, social and political power” which he claimed took place under Thatcher. But there is a strong case that she revived a Britain that was in deep decline before 1979.
In the 1970s Britain suffered from high inflation, repeated strikes, low productivity, and weak growth. The IMF had intervened to bail us out in 1976. The period known as the Winter of Discontent saw rubbish piling in streets, power cuts, and widespread industrial stoppages.
Most ordinary people genuinely believed trade unions had become too powerful. Before Thatcher unions could effectively shut down sectors, governments often retreated under strike pressure, and closed-shop practices restricted workers.
After her reforms, secondary picketing was restricted, strike ballots became mandatory, and union legal immunities were reduced. For millions of voters, this restored democratic government over industrial coercion. The phrase ‘union bully-boys’ reflected a real public feeling at the time, especially after the 1970s.
Under Thatcher, Britain became more competitive and entrepreneurial. Thatcher supporters credit her with reducing inflation, privatizing inefficient state industries, encouraging home ownership, fostering entrepreneurship, and modernizing the economy.
The ‘Right to Buy’ policy enabled millions to own homes for the first time, and London became one of the world’s dominant financial centres after deregulation.
In the 1970s Britain was often seen as a declining ex-imperial state, but Thatcher projected strength internationally through a close alliance with Ronald Reagan, confrontation with the Soviet Union, and victory in the Falklands War. Her supporters argue she restored confidence, seriousness and geopolitical credibility.
Most economists now agree that the pre-1979 economic model was failing, inflation had to be controlled, and union power needed reform. Even later Labour governments under Tony Blair accepted many Thatcher-era reforms.
There were great social and regional costs. Communities built around declining heavy industry often experienced long-term unemployment, drug or alcohol addiction, crime, family breakdown, and declining civic pride and identity.
Critics say Britain never properly replaced the social fabric destroyed in those regions. Power did drain away from many industrial communities and local institutions. It could be argued, however, that the heavy industries including steel, shipbuilding and coal were in decline because Britain could not compete with other countries in those areas.
One could argue that Thatcher ‘let it happen,’ but what would it have taken to prevent or slow that decline? It would have taken the imposition of tariffs to make foreign steel, ships and coal more expensive. Subsidies would have been needed to support these loss-making industries. The UK would have had to become an island economy, paying more for these producer goods than the rest of the world. None of them could have competed internationally, nor could the good that were produced using them. That policy might have slowed the decline but not prevented it. And it would have imposed huge costs on taxpayers, consumers and business.
Thatcher chose not to go down that route. She made Britain more dynamic, competitive and governable, but also more unequal, more financially concentrated, and more regionally divided. That tension still defines British politics today.
Madsen Pirie