I'm a working-class Brit who grew up with that narrative too, but the reality is far more nuanced.
Basically, coming out of the 70s, British industry was horribly uncompetitive, and riddled with union corruption. Huge swathes were government owned, so essentially taxpayer propped. They were also behind protectionist barriers, which I'm not totally averse to, but these hurt other industries by preventing free trade deals.
What she did was rip the band-aid off. She recognised the world had changed, and Britain's economy desperately needed modernising. Her crime is in doing it too quickly, and not offering enough transitional support to all the single-industry towns it devastated.
Her policies were necessary evils. But I agree she could have gone about things much better. She was very much 'small-state' conservatism, but I think some safety nets are important, and where they wrongly exist, you can't just remove them overnight. You have to help people transition.
I'm a working-class Brit who grew up with that narrative too, but the reality is far more nuanced.
Basically, coming out of the 70s, British industry was horribly uncompetitive, and riddled with union corruption. Huge swathes were government owned, so essentially taxpayer propped. They were also behind protectionist barriers, which I'm not totally averse to, but these hurt other industries by preventing free trade deals.
What she did was rip the band-aid off. She recognised the world had changed, and Britain's economy desperately needed modernising. Her crime is in doing it too quickly, and not offering enough transitional support to all the single-industry towns it devastated.
Her policies were necessary evils. But I agree she could have gone about things much better. She was very much 'small-state' conservatism, but I think some safety nets are important, and where they wrongly exist, you can't just remove them overnight. You have to help people transition.