Margaret: Death of a Revolutionary


SHUT your eyes and think of Margaret Thatcher (twin-set, hair-do, hand bag, smells nice) and Fidel Castro (combat fatigues, bushy beard, revolver, smells of backy). Which one is the firebrand working-class revolutionary? The answer, of course, is Mrs Thatcher. The vile tyrannt Castro enslaved and impoverished the lower orders in Cuba. Thatcher enriched and liberated them in Britain.

The reason the Left hates Thatcher so much is that she stole the working class from them. And she was able to do this because she understood and shared their aspirations.

Behind the bluster about her death this week are two very different visions of the working class. According to the Left, the proles are oppressed, and the source of that oppression is economic freedom. The Left wants the working class living in state housing, travelling on state transport, working in state-controlled jobs, receiving a state education. The Left fights not to change, but to preserve working practices and “working class communities”, as it offensively calls them.

Mrs Thatcher had a sneaking suspicion that people wanted to own their own home, perhaps in a leafy suburb rather than a council estate. She had the idea that “working class” people wanted the things she wanted – to leave money to their children, to own a few shares, maybe start a little company, go on foreign holidays, own a car – maybe even two cars! She was right. They did want this, which is why ordinary working people voted for her in huge numbers.

The shop keepers and builders and taxi drivers of Basildon (formerly Labour) thought she was God’s gift.  Mrs Thatcher saw voluntary profitable economic exchange as an essential and vital part of a truly human existence. Her commitment to economic freedom was moral and inspired by a (Christian) love of and confidence in other people.

The “market” was not a wicked thing. It was lively and sociable, she said. It brought spices and coffee and bananas into the shops. In her day, it brought Fred Astaire to the local cinema. And most ordinary Britons had the good sense to agree (unlike the Left, our “intelligentsia” and the Tory old guard).

To the horror of the Left, Margaret Thatcher re-defined the class struggle. The socialists argued that “the workers” were being ripped off by “the bosses”. But when workers looked at their wages and saw almost half had gone, they knew it wasn’t the bosses who had taken it. It was the state. “Socialism” was reduced to fleecing hard-working people in the private sector to keep the middle class public sector gravy train rolling.

The new class struggle, as defined by the revolutionary Thatcher, was between Tax Producers (in the productive economy) and Tax Consumers (in the parasitic public sector). The regions that voted Labour were dominated by public sector workers and benefit recipients (they wanted to keep the tap on). The regions that voted for Thatcher were populated by the suckers who footed the bill (and rather resented it).

All the talk today of “austerity” would cause Thatcher to boil with rage. “Whose austerity are we talking about?” she would thunder. “Theirs or ours?” (to paraphrase Trotsky). Less public spending means a lighter burden on the productive economy. She knew it. The good people of Basildon knew it. Perhaps someone should tell George Osborne.

Much rubbish has been said of Thatcher in the last week. We’re told that her deregulation of the City (which broke the old boy network and let in the barrow boys) ushered in an era of greed and was the cause of the great crash. Let’s spell it out so even Robert Peston can understand. The crash was the result of the preceding credit boom. Credit booms are the result of governments pumping too much money into the economy – which Thatcher was adamantly against. She knew why politicians like doing it: phony booms make them look good and it’s a way of stealing money from savers without the saps even noticing. Thatcher also knew the terrible consequence: pumping money in lowers interest rates, encouraging debt and discouraging saving. If only Thatcher had privatised currency too, to prevent politicians abusing their monopolistic control of it!

We’re also told that Thatcher damaged manufacturing. Again, let’s set the record straight. Manufacturing does well when it makes a good profit. Higher taxes mean lower profits. It is the burden of supporting Britain’s obese public sector (now roughly the same size as our private sector) which is crushing the life out of capitalism (manufacturing included).

There will be plenty of people lining the route of Thatcher’s funeral. But they won’t be the toffs down from Hampstead. They’ll be ordinary folk from Basildon. The sort of people who used to vote Labour. And unlike the regimented mourners at the funeral of a Socialist dictator, the sorrow will be genuine. This is one revolutionary who deserves our gratitude and affection

Comments (44)

Dear Martin, Thank you for

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your excellent documentary on Margaret Thatcher. I was impressed by how the program conveyed the scale of astonishing change, all greatly to our benefit, which occurred during her eleven years in power.

You didn't mention the things she got wrong, poll tax, section 28 etc. As a great admirer of Thatcher I'm happy to concede that she got things wrong. She herself admitted this in her memoirs. But you never hear the people who hated her and celebrated her death admit that she got anything right. Their hatred knows no bounds. It was interesting to watch Kinnock squirm as you listed all those policies that transformed Britain and he refused to give her any credit for them.

I watched the program after the funeral and you were quite prophetic when you said her admirers would come out in their thousands to say thank you and goodbye one last time. In the end, decency and gratitude was seen in abundance and the idiots on the left made fools of themselves.

Thanks again for a great documentary.

I never understood until I

I never understood until I watched this documentary why anybody would support Thatcher. It always seemed like defending the wholly indefensible, so it was very interesting to see a detailed perspective from one of her supporters. Still disagree with almost everything that she actually did but I think I understand the reasoning behind it now. I was a little disappointed that the documentary did not tackle the issue of the poll tax riots though, but still really interesting.

I watched this documentary

I watched this documentary with great interest. I am not deep rooted in any political ideology and try to understand all political leaders' views and what they stand/stood for. I was only a child during the 1980's so the impact of the Thatcher years where not obvious to me at the time. This documentary was obviously paying homage to Margaret but just like the "Left's" demonizing of her, it left me failing to get a full picture of her leadership. Could Martin or one of Thatcher's supporters on here please kindly answer some of my questions so I can try to further my understanding of this period.

1. Some people did well under Thatcher, some did not. What did she do (or should be done) for the people who for whatever reason are left behind? Capitalism is a system of winners and losers. What about the losers?

2. Is it fair to say that big manufacturing industries declined during the 1980's? Didn't Martin use the city of Newcastle as an example in another documentary as a city that used to (and could again) thrive as a big (shipbuilding I think) manufacturing area? Why did this not happen during the "Thatcher revolution"? What about the impact that pit closures had many towns and villages?

3. Foreign policy was featured in the documentary (Falklands, Reagan, USSR). What about her support for apartheid South Africa and the Khmer Rouge?

4. Why no mention of the Poll tax? Wasn't this the reason for her demise rather than an old conservative elitist agenda dating back over nearly two decades?

I am not intending on angering anyone with these questions. I am just really interested in how her supporters would respond to these points.

It was a very thought provoking documentary.


Martin With this excellent

With this excellent documentary you have once again exposed the feeble mindedness of the BBC/Guardian received 'wisdom'. You are the great iconoclast of our time, taking on lefty idiocy with enormous bravery and wit. The way in which La Toynbee, Baroness Warnock and the Welsh Windbag condemned themselves with the lightest of touches by you was priceless. Bravo.

Brilliant film. 90 minutes

Brilliant film. 90 minutes flew by.

I was 10 when Thatcher came to power and can (just) remember the nation on its knees, the continuous stream of strikes, power cuts, disruption, the derelict docklands, the terrible british state built cars, the long wait for telephone line to be installed. etc etc

It seems the Left and other media outlets forget this..... It seems that Atlee, Macmillan's "you never had it so good" and the swinging sixties was quickly followed by Thatcher. Not so.

The first documentary Ive seen which paints a vivid picture of how i remembered the 70s. Thanks.

Wasn't she a friend of

Wasn't she a friend of Pinochet's - friend in need too, if I remember aright.

I second the notion for a DVD

I second the notion for a DVD release Mr. Durkin. I really enjoyed - it synchronised with my increasing positive feeling toward Thatcher in recent years. That wasn't always the case though! Is a copy available anywhere, or a repeat forthcoming???

DVD should be out this week.

DVD should be out this week. Thank you for asking.

At last! Something decent to

At last! Something decent to say about our greatest Prime Minister in modern times. Loved that you traced her policies back to her ideological roots in Hayek and her upbringing. You covered a lot of ground in a short time and so you can be excused for not being too nuanced here. The MSM seems to have given more coverage to a few unwashed dregs and their pond life 'death parties' than to Mrs T. herself. So this was like a breath of fresh air. I always enjoy your stuff. Thank you so much!

I have always believed that

I have always believed that socialism is there to help the poor, which means you have to be poor to benefit from it, therefore socialism keeps the poor poor to maintain itself. Your documentary expressed this and so much more in a way I could have never imagined.

Withing Kinnock's silence (when you asked him if Thatcher had improved Britain) - Socialism itself unraveled. Exposed for what it is. An once useful, but now outdated ideology. Conveniently re-purposed for self proclaimed moral high-grounders who in a rush of guilt, smother their beliefs on the working class, not realizing it is the glue that binds their feet in poverty.

(OK so that second para is a bit fancy).

But Brave- what a great documentary.

What a narrow and blatant

What a narrow and blatant ignorant assessment of Socialism. Many of the ideals of the ideology have furthered the cause of ending African slavery, gave votes for black, women and the white non property owning class. It set a minimum standard for society to never fall below. Ensuring that essentials means to live and be successful such as education, health & food were offered to all and not just the few. Regardless if you were unlucky enough to be born into a family of poverty. Why the hell should children, of not fault of their own, be born into a family of poverty and be denied basic healthcare like some in the USA.

Socialism is there to help the poorer because if you haven't noticed. Those earning £100k a year are doing well and often don't need much help!

Socialism gave votes to

Socialism gave votes to no-one. See North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Communist China. Capitalism ended slavery. Capitalism enfranchised and enriched the masses. The watered down Communism we now suffer under gives us all (poor included), dreadful healthcare (just watch the news) and a tragically substarndard education. To hell with socialism.

Best documentary for years,

Best documentary for years, so refreshing to hear the truth about socialism and the great work Mrs T did. Her only failing was not going after the public service unions after the industrial unions. These are the new cancer ensuring socialism continues its death-grip on our economy and push the new social revolution. We need a new Tory party - if only Tebbit was 20 years younger!

Thank you so much for an

Thank you so much for an excellent documentary. It was refreshing to watch something that actually reflected the historical and economic context of Britain in the 70s and 80s. I particularly enjoyed the vignettes of Lady Warnock, Polly Toynbee and Neil Kinnock, who eloquently condemned the policies of the Left, seemingly without irony. The point that Thatcher shook up the post-war consensus was well's easy to see where we would be now, had she not.

One of the best

One of the best documentaries, I've ever seen.

Six years ago, my wife and I came to England to live our dream, i.e., to be part of a free society that merits endeavour, effort and achievement and is ruled by principles of equity (fairness) rather than equality. Much of this, as it appears, is Margaret Thatchers doing.

We share a working class background with the late Lady Thatcher and we are very well aware that it is only by means of a free market that working class people can make their way up the ladder, vertical mobility as it is called. We became academics and encountered many so-called leftist academics who <b>think </b>they know a lot about working class people, who think working class people need being patronized by middle-class people and who do nothing else than block their way up the ladder, so that positions at the top stay reserved for the posh.

I guess this is one thing that infuriated Lady Thatcher just as much as it infuriates us today. More than twenty years into the legacy of Thatcher, it all comes back: middle class patronizers who know exactly what working class people have to eat, to drink, how much they have to eat and drink, what their BMI has to be, that they need middle class women on boards of directors and that they need being guided through their lifes by advisers of middle class origin.

Seems as if we can do with another Thatcher. Unfortunately, all we have is the European Union and a rather tame Conservative Party

Best documentary maker in the

Best documentary maker in the UK, by some considerable margin.

At last, someone has restored

At last, someone has restored my faith that there still exists someone in the media who is not blinded by foolish deluded propaganda and lies.

Clearly uncomfortable viewing for those who continue to benefit from maintaining the socialist status quo and fear anyone shining a spotlight on their propagated myths and unmasking their destructive agendas.

I commend you on your courage to not just tell the truth, but to stand up and try and educate others about it.

This programme should be broadcast on all channels and a key component in the education of all our young people and future generations.

Looks like my earlier comment

Looks like my earlier comment got moderated out!

Can't think why, there was nothing controversial in it.

Any moderator out there want to tell me why?

Sorry Doug. Must have been a

Sorry Doug. Must have been a mistake. No-one moderates on here (except to keep the spam out). It's just badly organised.

the neil furguson school of

the neil furguson school of stilted history and half truths in the service of right wing ideology like the pseudo histories concocted by hitler's professors it's not a co-incidence that the nazis too claimed to represent and benefit the working class. classic orwellian doublethink.

The nazi jibe doesn't work.

The nazi jibe doesn't work. They did not claim to represent the working class. They were rude about the working class, and did not enjoy much urban working class support (public sector bureacrats supported the nazis in droves). The nazis were thoroughly Keynesian, and hierarchical in their social views - in fact remarkably close to the One Nation Tories who despised Mrs Thatcher. And the nazis were not too far in most of their social and economic policies from Mrs Thatcher's Keynsian Socialist critics (of whom you clearly are one). The clue is in the name ... Socialist (National don't you know, because they weren't at all keen on Free Trade, or 'Globalisation' as the trendies call it these days).

What a superb programme.

What a superb programme. Isn't it ironic that capitalism has done more for the poor than any level of socialism.

Your question to Kinnock on Alan the Plasterer about what he had done wrong got a nothing reply.

Looking forward to your speech on Wednesday.

Thanks for an excellent

Thanks for an excellent documentary. It was a great antidote for the bile being spewed from the useful idiots of the Left this week. Here's my take on it, for which I will doubtless be pilloried:

Brilliant film, brilliant

Brilliant film, brilliant blog.
Leaving important facts aside, I loved the very funny moments. Baroness Warnock and her defining category of the bad taste pussy bow. Neil Kinnock gasping for breath like a fish out of water.
i wish somebody would upload those on youTube.
Looking at the crowd celebrating on Trafalgar Square, I was wondering how many were there for the free pop festival not to be missed. How many of them knew anything about anything?
I wonder how many among my very affluent neighbours in Islington would have bothered to see your programme and if they would admit to having learnt something?

I tried to keep an open mind

I tried to keep an open mind but realised quickly that in among some fascinating contemporary footage was what is known in the trade as rubbish journalism.
I had a feeling that at some stage in the show, Kinnock would perform the seaside pratfall, and sure enough, there he came and over he went. Kinnock might be a fellow lefty in the people's republic of Islington and was clearly no match for Thatcher, but that was a cheap and irrelevant shot. Was the point of the programme to analyse Thatcher's record or join the Spectator in its amusing pastime of being mean to liberals?

Some points:

If Thatcher had so little time for Tory grandees/toffs, why was she pals with the likes of Airey Neave, Willie Whitelaw and Hailsham and bowed at the altars of Churchill and Macmillan?

The Falklands? A curious omission.

Mark Thatcher and his business affairs? Ditto.

Nelson Mandela, the well known terrorist? Ditto.
Check out Mrs T's "over my dead body" quote. Now's your time, Nelson!

Would you get Pimlico Plumbers to fix your leak? Phone them and get a price.

As a smug, almost affluent Islington liberal, I share your pain but not your need to insult. I hope we won't be hearing any of that sort of stuff from the pulpit on Wednesday.

It takes good, solid journalism to change minds. This show fell well short.

John Hayes

John, What relevance have


What relevance have Mark Thatcher's business affairs got to do with his mother? The sins of the father (mother) should not be borne by the son (daughter), and vice versa.

Clearly you have no sense of irony. If you don't like Pimlico Plumbers prices you are free to get quotes elsewhere. That's the beauty of the free market. Or perhaps you would prefer a plumber from a State monopoly who will charge you State regulated prices?

Thatcher's friendship with Hailsham, Neave, Whitelaw and admiration of Churchill (never McMillan) showed that she was not at all bothered by their backgrounds and they were receptive to her. However, it was an oft-noted fact that the old Tory grandees (think Francis Pym, Jim Prior, Christopher Soames, Ian Gilmour) were not at all fond of her until she started winning election after election.

Typical little snark, no

Typical little snark, no attention to accuracy. Ask yourself, John, when did Thatcher make the Mandela comment, and was he, at the time, incarcerated as a terrorist ?

Italy - 8 April . Heard

Italy - 8 April . Heard about Mt passing away. When I explained to my 12 year old daughter who MT was and why so many people hate her I had to make one example: the milk snatcher! My daughter replies: oh, yeah, definitely a witch!

It's not a matter of being right wing, left wing or supporting the working class, a bully must be condemned and she was a bully, I'm afraid. Ask around!

Congratulations on wonderful

Congratulations on wonderful programme telling the truth about an exceptional politician and the third raters who opposed her. A sad truth that such a tale could never be shown on the BBC.

Martin, an excellent

Martin, an excellent documentary and tribute to Lady Thatcher, thank you. It's a shame the Tory party seems to have lapsed back to its Old Toffs Tory roots.

Harold - Why couldn't the private British Shipbuilders survive? It was because they couldn't compete in a commercial world, and yet you seem to think that the taxpayer should have continued subsidising them. If you think this isn't the case in other "high wage" economies, such as Germany, then take a look at what happened to old German shipbuilders such as Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft who closed yards in Hamburg, were bought by Babcock AG who then went bust and were taken over by Thyssen-Krupp Marine. Take a look at Nordseewerke which went bust and was taken over by SIAG who've now also gone bust. German shipbuilding was kept afloat with taxpayers money and although now there is something of a renaissance going on in shipbuilding most of it is being done in Asia.

Secondly, both you and Martin are correct about the causes of the financial crisis. Monetary policy was too loose for too long following the dotcom crash. Greenspan has admitted it. Regulation of the banks by the Bank of England had worked for decades but in November 1997 Brown decided to scrap that for his tripartite regulation. The Shadow Chancellor at the time, Peter Lilley, warned Labour in the debate that the Bill changing the regulatory system was a "Bill for spivs and crooks". Was he wrong? Even Brown admitted it was a mistake. How do you manage to blame Thatcher? I assume you are referring to "Big Bang" which liberated the City from being an old boys club to a world financial centre. The only thing that can really be criticised about that is that blurring the distinction between jobbers and brokers can lead to a conflict of interest. It's role in the financial crisis is like saying that a gun manufacturer is responsible for the actions of a serial killer. The real problem was regulation. We won't even mention the large structural deficit being run by Labour in 2007.

I do blame Margaret Thatcher

I do blame Margaret Thatcher in part for the current economic woes although Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, I accept, are more responsible. Under her we saw house price bubbles and the increase in personal debt. Something that her successors carried on. And your metaphor re the gun manufacturer is totally inadequate - the lack separation of casino banking and retail banking was the direct child of big bang.

As for the shipbuilding comment, I don't suggest for one moment that that shipbuilding could employ anywhere near the same amount of people it did in 1979 and some yards would have had to close. But by keeping some yards afloat and making sure that you have good management (something Margaret Thatcher failed to do throughout her premiership in various fields) you could still have a sustainable industry (as it is in the countries I mentioned) Using tax payers money also prevents tax payers cash being used to support people on the dole. Incidentally most of the massive passenger liners that you see now are built in Europe. Btw we also use tax payers money and great dollops of it to support certain industries - banking, arms manufacturers etc so why draw the line at ship building or other industries which if managed properly could have some kind of future

One last thing - In 1979 the German economy was stronger than Britain's. After nearly three decades of neo-liberal economics in this country, the German economy is still far far stronger than ours. Why is that ? Because Germany thinks long term, it spends big on research and development, it has far fewer useless take-overs, (particularly ones that aren't in the national interest) isn't into get rich quick financial bubbles and keeps debt in check - both national and personal. They have paid for the unification (something that would have completely bankrupted Britain) and now emerging from other side with an economy we could only dream of. They didn't need a Margaret Thatcher or her policies.

Harold, thank you for your

Harold, thank you for your response. The first thing I would say is that the UK economy grew faster under Thatcher than either the German or French economies; albeit we were starting from a fairly low level. Nigel Lawson's shadowing of the DM (which wasn't approved by Thatcher) allowed inflation to build up and Major's subsequent decision to join the ERM at too high an exchange rate gave us a fairly deep recession at the beginning of the 90s. To Major and Ken Clarke's credit they put us on a path to recovery that bore full fruit by 2001 after Gordon Brown stuck to Tory spending plans during Labour's first term. Secondly, the regulatory framework set up by Gordon Brown, coupled with overly-loose monetary policy was primarily responsible for the financial crash. Yes, I agree that a separation of investment and retail banking is preferable. Big Bang did not explicitly set out to break that distinction but the seemingly easy profits to be made in trading derivative financial products was too enticing for the retail banks to ignore. Poor risk management coupled with poor regulation of the retail banks was the primary problem. My father used to work for a retail bank in the 70s and 80s and he said that the Bank of England only had to "raise an eyebrow" and the bank jumped back into line - fast! Clearly the FSA were not quite so authoritative.

With regard to your other point about taxpayers keeping shipbuilding going. First, it is cheaper to pay people welfare than pay for industrial losses. I know that seems callous but taxpayers money is earned by, and belongs to, other taxpayers and not governments. Secondly, while you prop up ailing industries then you are making it more difficult for more viable industries to enter the marketplace. Thirdly, you assume that governments know best which industries should be kept going and which should be allowed to go under. They don't. Economies run on the idea that central government knows best and central planning is all have failed spectacularly. The free market adjusts rapidly to the needs to an economy. Keeping shipbuilding going would have meant we were not just competing with the Asians, but also the Germans. If the Germans struggled to keep it afloat with taxpayers' money then what makes you think the market is big enough for us too? Fourthly, I agree that British management was notoriously bad. The main reason being that when you nationalise much of your industry then you don't need good management to compete. Finally, much of the south of England and the Midlands (excluding financial services) was receptive to the idea of old industries being replaced by new enterprises, while the North of England and Scotland were outright hostile to the change. Governments don't create jobs (unless they are wealth-consuming public sector jobs) but private enterprise does. Maybe the North and Scotland should have been a little more receptive. Witness Ford trying to open a plant in Dundee, only for endless union squabbling making Ford give up and go to Spain instead. If we didn't need Thatcher or her policies why were they copied by the Labour party and indeed around the world.

The German economy hasn't

The German economy hasn't suffered from boom or bust in the way that ours had under both Conservative and Labour. They did undergo a very sticky spell in the late 90s/early noughties but that was down to the cost of reunification - something that would have bankrupted the UK. The German economy remains much stronger than ours without the flexible labour force, de-regulation and strict trade union laws. Neither they nor the rest of Europe's most prosperous countries have followed Margaret Thatchers lead. Certainly some such France and Italy have deep rooted problems which means that their long terms future is at least as bleak as ours (in Italy's case probably a lot worse). However the Netherlands, Scandanavia and Austria have excellent standards of living, quality of life, and far greater wealth equality. George Osborne has admitted publicly that the fundamentals of the German economy are far stronger than ours.

With all due respect you seem to be blame every Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher for any economic woe we have suffered since 1979 as if she had nothing to do with it. The first unsustainable house price bubble happened under her watch. And honestly are you saying that Margaret Thatcher would have intervened to have prevented RBS from buying ABN Amro ? Do you think she would have put in place mechanism's to have prevented HBOS being run in the way it was. Or the rash of take-overs that allowed banks to become too big to fail ? The only time I remember Margaret Thatchers government intervening was to prevent Tiny Rowlands from buying Harrods and House of Fraser - and that was so Mohammed Al Fayed could become its owner as a thank you for him persuading the Sultan of Brunei not take his money out of Britain (this is not a conspiracy theory either)

With regards to those industries that you talk about, I believe that had shipbuilding been managed properly, it could still be a sustainable industry today in the UK albeit employing a reduced workforce and fewer yards than in 1979. However it doesn't exist at all now in any major way other than shipyards that rely on orders from the government. It still exists in other countries that cannot be described as low wage. You question whether there is room for us now. No I accept now its too late. The investment needed to get a yard built and a workforce trained up that could deliver the technological ships of today would be impossible. But it didn't have to be this way and thats my point.

You say that such intervention prevents others from entering the market. But if the market is on its knees then Government should be able to decide if this industry has a future, is it in the National Interest to save it and what plan is there to get the industry going again.

Much is made about the amount of cars now made in this country. But little is said that nearly all the profits go overseas and the ultra high skilled research and development jobs are not in this country either. Germany hasn't shut a car factory since 1946 and rather than see GM close Opel (and by extension Vauxhall) the German Government were willing to buy it from them.

As mentioned before, the UK government does intervene all the time in the arms industry (defence procurement and the Export Credit Guarantee), is currently still propping up the banking industry and is still heavily involved in the now privatised utilities such as energy and rail (where the subsidy has risen dramatically since privatisation)

In answer to you final part about hostility toward Margaret Thatcher the further North you go, I'm interested in what new enterprises were there to replace the old industries. You mention the Ford plant that was scuppered by Ron Todd of the T&G. That was a one off. Plenty of other foreign multinationals did come to this country having been offered generous subsidies to do so. And having come many have left and taken the govt subsidy with them. For every Nissan on Wearside there is a Hyundai in Fife. In Greenock, IBM was to replace the Yards. Now - in real terms - neither are there. Even Norman Tebbit accepts that at the time they probably didn't realise the damage done to many communities when they shut the mines. That is why there is such resentment. In addition various other social ills come with long term unemployment

Germany and other Nordic countries have kept their top range manufacturing. In the US (who bailed out their car industry too in the not to recent past) they are at the forefront of new technology companies such as Apple, Google etc. It wouldn't think twice about intervening to protect them if it felt it had to. If you have a country that has many homegrown companies, you will be able to tax the profits, see the higher end R&D jobs and be less likely to see factories/offices/plants close as companies prefer to close places as far way as possible from head office.

Britain has sold out. Its manufacturing has shrunk and we became reliant on a financial services industry who made big profits but which came at a cost. (and even in the boom times it destroyed as many jobs as it created). The booms have been built on credit and the limits have now been reached. There is no balance in the economy and you have absurdities such as a privatised energy industry thats dominated by state run French and German firms. These are all IMHO the consequences of Margaret Thatcher's government. Sure subsequent Labour administrations carried on her policies. But that is why I believe that the future is looking grim for quite some time to come.

The left hate it! Haha! The

The left hate it! Haha! The only thing they can do now is revert to their childish anti-Thatcher protests whilst knowing that socialism will never ever return.
Ding-dong the left is dead!
What a breath of fresh air!

Great programme! The areas

Great programme! The areas of British life that Mrs Thatcher dealt with were preserved and therefore endored by the following Major - unsurprisingly,Blair and Brown governments.

Why can't Mr Kinnock get to grips with why the British people supported Mrs Thatcher and that Labour's response, Mr Blair, also rejected Mr kinnock's values.

I was 4 years old when Mrs.

I was 4 years old when Mrs. Thatcher came to power - I only wish I had been older as until I watched your programme I was unaware of all that Mrs. Thatcher achieved for Britain. I am in absolute awe. What an amazing woman. I am glad though that I was too young to suffer listening to Neil Kinnock - his jealousy was palpable and his answers pathetic. Thank you for a fantastic programme.

I have just watched

I have just watched enthralled the Channel 4 showing of your film. In a week where the anti-Thatcher forces have attempted to distort and misrepresent the work she did and the good that resulted, it was a relief to have a television channel presenting the truth.
As the people who should have seen this film will not have watched it and therefore will continue believing the lies their parents and friends told them. I intend that they shall get to see it and form their own views on the THATCHER LEGACY.

Exactly right! What a breath

Exactly right! What a breath of fresh air and truth after all the deluded nonsense we've heard this week. And your documenatary was superb, thank you for a brilliant assessment, thoughtful and thought provoking. Incredible to hear just how much of Britain was state owned and just how much housing before Mrs T got to grips. And Kinnock's struggle to answer your final question was wondrous to behold. Cameron's difficulty with Are you a Thatcherite ditto. Great great film about a radical and revolutionary leader. Thank you.

If a Dave Spart had made a

If a Dave Spart had made a documentary as biased as the one I have the misfortune to be watching then the certain media outlets (which I suspect you adore) would go into overdrive.

You say Margaret Thatcher won over the working class. Then explain the lack of representation within Britain's inner cities north of London ?

You say those heavy industries couldn't be saved. Why do they still make ships in those high wage, highly regulated countries such as Germany, Italy, France, Denmark, Finland, South Korea and Japan.

You say that governments caused the financial crisis. No a lack of regulation caused the financial crisis - but hey I realise you can't bring yourself to blame capitalists and free marketeers for the current economic woes.

You say she brought down communism. Actually the failed communist system brought itself down but don't let that stop your nonsense. Yet instead of celebrating the demise of the communism she wrote to Gorbachev expressing her concern at the Wall's fall.

You are correct in one thing. Much rubbish has been written and said about Margaret Thatcher this week. Your documentary however is one of the finest examples of such guff. Those who danced at the death of someone this week are imbeciles that lack basic humanity. But you clearly hate the left in the same way that they hate the likes of Margaret Thatcher. The truth is that you and those that drank champagne at her passing are as bad as each other.

What a load of reactionary

What a load of reactionary horse manure!

Wonderful stuff. Bravo!

Wonderful stuff.


hahaha!!!!!!! hahaha!!!!!!! h


you're great!
I mean... it's a funny way to lead a life, sort of everything topsy-turvy, but... go for it!


Well said. The left hate

Well said. The left hate Margaret Thatcher because she exposed the fairy tale of socialism.

It should come as no surprise that the anti -Thatcher song currently receiving deluded attention at the moment comes from perhaps the greatest fairy story of them all, the Wizard of Oz.

We've had several left

We've had several left wingers on TV trying to explain why subsequent Labour governments didn't reverse Margaret's changes. The real reason is that they know they're sensible and that they couldn't have achieved them because they lacked the courage to take on the unions.

But no, they say that the changes could have been achieved by consensus over a longer period. Anyone who believes this is deluded, there was no way that the Union Barons would have willingly given up the stranglehold that they had. And even if they did - eventually - we would have gone bust as a nation in the interim.

Like a lot of people, I didn't agree with everything she did, but am truly grateful that we were fortunate enough to have such a courageous Prime Minister at a time of dire need.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Subscribe to articles

Short Thoughts

Comments (7)
Comments ()
Comments (3)


  • cover picture of The Naked Pilgrim