@Squirrel That's Millibands legacy of shifting the party left and creating the £3 membership fee where middle class Marxists rushed into the Labour membership, corbyn being popular with the working class is a lie.
@@xm3405 did Lord Rothermere tell you that? or I guess 1 medium size town being between Labour and a coalition government in 2017 was just a huge statistical lie. I guess 100,000 dead (and climbing at time of writing) is better than those evil marxists that wanted to end homelessness, actually fund public infrastructure and improve the material conditions of millions through reform was simply too much for us freedom loving brits. Finally, to quote some neo-conservatives "the free market will set you free".
I'm playing Thatcher in a short play for college, so I've been watching videos and reading articles. I'm not so good at understanding politics though, so this helps a lot.
Don't stop here because it is misleading. 1) Thatcher didn't increase the middle-class. The working class who would have been in factories are not 'entrepreneurs' they are still working class but now non-unionised and in warehouses, care-homes, shops, delivery lorries and call centres and going to food-banks. 2) In 1981 the Right Wing of Labour formed a new party and split the Labour vote. In the elections of 1983,87,92 the combined SDP and Labour vote exceeded the Tory vote. 3) During the Blair years Labour lost 5M working class voters 4) currently the only people voting Tory are the over 55s (of all classes) who benefited from house price inflation. People under 40 (of all classes) now vote Labour. See th-cam.com/video/-NJk3JQIfuU/w-d-xo.html
Modest Proposal well yeah, a 9-minute video alone is never enough research. And while your comment is informative, mine is over 2 years old and I haven’t touched anything Thatcher-related since then, so it’s a little misplaced.
@@MaxMallard That's no excuse! I suppose because it's been 2 years again you think you're off the hook this time too!!?? Get back into it. I want an essay on the repercussions of Thatcher's social, economic and political policies by the end of the week. At least 5 pages, thank you. And don't even think about using Chatgpt - I'll know. ....that'll be all.
Thanks for giving the full contextual Thatcher quote. I also read it that she believes that "society" does not exist as a "committee" forming a judgement or collective decision but individual people or families making their own decisions on purchases, and work, based on their own income, skills, opinions, aims and values. Many of these merge into common themes when looking at the collective result, but these are the result of millions of "microdecisions" on their choice of car, holiday destination, saving or spending.
Excellent as ever. Thanks you for an objective review of "no society" quote and its context. It is similar to Milton Friedman's views that "people" do things, not governments. She considerewd that "Society" is not a unified body that makes a decision that is passed down like a jury. And society is not a separate entity. People make their own decisions on purchasing and savings, and there are 60 million of these. Collectively these form a wide distribution of people's decision and actions. But society is not an entity in the way that a soviet or workers council would be.
It's similar to what Nietzsche said about the common good. It doesn't exist because different people have different things that they want. That's the libertarian criticism of democracy/government, that it affects to help society as a whole but only helps special interests (big business, for sure, but a lot of different groups). Therefore, the way to have the happiest society is for the government to not interfere and let people pursue their own ends.
@Judson Joist Insurance is a form of collectivism. Everyone pays for a policy but only a few make a claim. The working class had their own safety net this way (e.g. health insurance, job insurance) before the government took it over. Now they say you're against the working man if you try to get the government out of things. They're cluelessly brainwashed.
People actually make decisions based on their material conditions. Her model of the world just so happens to hand the most power to those with the most wealth. Weird that.
I have qualifications coming out my arse can’t find work. My brothers partner has a PhD in criminal forensics and can’t get a job my brother is an amateur pilot with tons of qualifications and he works part time for screw fix. Neo liberalism/capitalism doesn’t work and never has and always needs socialism in one form or another to help the opponents of socialism
John Are you saying the state should create jobs for the sake of jobs, rather than because they are needed? That you deserve something from society by virtue of choosing to study a subject for years?
In Australia we missed Thatcherism until John Howard forced it on us. We got GST (like VAT) after he said in opposition that we’ll “never ever” get the GST. Was adopted by all conservative premiers. I remember Thatcher saying the senior staff of British Rail weren’t very good or they’d have jobs in private enterprise.
Hi I liked this video a lot and I really hope you can answer this question. Can you please recommend some further reading especially about her economic policy and why she favoured monetary policy over fiscal.
Very interesting presentation. It really also explains the rise of the extreme right-wing parties: Manufacturing jobs were lost. So part of them were transferred to white collar jobs. And part of the former manufacturing workers just never found work again. And they are the basis for the extreme right parties...
An excellent video, it provided me a lot of interesting informations. However, I've a question: why did you say that the middle class grew numerically during Thatcher's government? We always hear that, in this period, inequality hiked, as well as Gini coefficient. Inequality growth is one of the main criticism we hear against neoliberal policies, but what you said about the broadening of middle class is really interesting.
Antonio, this is an excellent point. It also reminds me of one of Thatcher's memorable quotes. When another MP confronted her about income inequality, she cleverly stated that all levels of society were better off than in 1979 (the beginning of her term).That was likely true. She went on to say "what the honourable gentleman is saying is that he would rather have the poor poorer, so long as the rich have less." It was a very clever response. Like her or hate her, Britain needed a strong hand after the economic turmoil of the 1970s. And they got it that in Thatcher.
Personal Responsibility and the state giving freedom to its citizens to choose what they need and don't need or want but the cost of the poor adds up eventually in welfare!!! Corbyn is proving we need education to give people POWER in KNOWLEDGE!!
Thank you so much for this amazing video! I wondered if by any chance you might point me towards some literature that backs up your conclusions regarding the targeting of voters by Labour? I'm writing a dissertation on Political Marketing by British Labour party and it just might help me so so much! Thank you again, +1 subscriber
Hi and thanks for that. The definitive history of the New Labour Project is, for me at any rate, Servants of the People by Andrew Rawnlsey. You should also check out So Who Do We Vote for Now by John Harris. Good luck!
I think the key policies were the lower interests and less bureaucracy which in turn encouraged entrepreneurship. This was coupled with efficiency measures that reduced the capital of the massively rich people which in turn ended up in the hands of new middle class entrepreneurs. Not to mention her success with initiating the service sector.
@@soboyoko so disclosure i've always been on the conservative side of things, but I've been trying to take a hard look at if my preconceptions of Thatcher (being overall good) are correct. I'm US so don't have an intimate knowledge of the UK perspective but my US mindset says that anything that benefits the middle class (or helps to prop it up) is good overall.. for the nation and the people. You said her success with initiating the service sector.. I was wondering specifically what you meant with that?
One part of the slide show that I did not like was the way you pictured the classes, the upper class is in no way near as large as the lower or middle class.
If she was all about maintaining level playing fields. Then why did she preside over the greatest increase in wealth inequality in decades? Why did unemployment rise so much during and after her administration, why did she make it a policy to increase unemployment. Why do people struggle to have housing, cars, etc after years of governments following her example. She was full of it.
I think there is a ridiculous assumption in free market thought, that there is equality of opportunity. How can there be equality of opportunity when some people inherit the money and resources to be able to make investments that become highly profitable when others in society are unable to raise the funds to be able to spend the large sums of money needed to make money? I also doubt that the Thatcher government was acting in a disinterested way by taking a more hands off approach to public services when in your visual on the demographics that vote conservative are the same upper class people who would benefit from the opening of the government monopolies on public services to private investors, who are guaranteed substantial profits from the whole population. This is not a legitimate risk (it only takes a team of accountants to do a cost benefit analysis on the usage data on the public service as it is being sold), and the money invested is not used to seed new industries, or develop the economy in any way. To me all this is is a way of removing the parties responsibility for the welfare of their electorates whilst lining the "right sort" of people as well as their donors pockets (ensuring that after their career in politics they will have a well paying corporate board position, helping big business to find the ear of their government official colleagues).
and I would not necessarily dispute any of that; in the 15 minutes available I seek only to explain the theory of the policy. So for example, I agree with the idea of selling off concil houses but think that the failure to use the proceeds to replace the lost stock was a monumental error, which runs parallel to your point about reinvestment. Thanks for the interest!
@@drfegg288 Why does the government need to build houses for the people? Isn't there something tremendously wrong with the country if it needs to do that?
Well firstly you're right, there isn't equal opportunity, and in the general theory, there never will be equal opportunity, as not everybody can be the same. It was about making the best of that situation. When it comes to taxation, there is a sort of 'Not in My Back Yard' approach, where you want taxes, but only for others. If you reduce Taxes for all, the rich are happier and the poor have more money in their pockets. Many on the left feel that a higher corporation tax is in order, which would mean less money to spend for the company, and a probable loss of jobs. Society is full of entrepreneurs, and yes, people like Richard Branson are few and far between, but it is still certainly possible to achieve. It is a hard world, I will admit, but the harder you work, the easier it becomes for you. Low taxes with limited subsiding and nationalising (save for the NHS, i don't know why anybody wouldn't want it), as Nigel Lawson had, to get the lowering of taxes, in such a way as to grow the economy, and therefore a higher tax revenue. What benefit does government intervention in the economy bring? it's like a child let lose in mission control, wanting to press all the buttons that you know is just going to go badly wrong. And your assumption that the Conservative vote increased among the rich (which is the jist I'm sort of getting from the second paragraph, not sure if my interpretation is correct) is quite false, as I'm fairly certain the rich already voted conservative. Also If there are Private investors in a certain field, (which is what I'm also getting from the same paragraph) they naturally want to be the best, and this competition encourages business growth, meaning more employed, so more people can pay money in taxes, which can then be spent in public services.
@@elchapo2790 Heavily incorrect, her economic policies caused 3 recessions and many deaths. Blair refused to bring back Labour financial regulation from the 70s that thatcher repealed when she came to power directly leading to the financial crisis.
Labour are no longer the working class party they once were, I feel more connected with 50% of the tories( brexiters) than I do the most of labour, coming from a working class lad in a labour strong hold its very strange the shift in political attraction to the right wing politics & conservatism that I never thought I would be attracted by
El Ryy you’re not attracted to it you never had an ideology you’re trying to choose who you think is winning. If you think literal members of the 1% are on your side you’re mental. They came here in 1066 after beating the shit out of the English and have been in power ever since. They’re the 1%
@@JohnKobaRuddy So your argument is that no-one is naturally conservative, and that we just follow who is winning? If that were the case, once Labour got into power, Labour would always win. I'm 20 and from a very working class background, living from paycheck to paycheck, but I budget well and understand the importance of both microeconomic and macroeconomic stability. I also believe in the importance of free choice for the individual, in order to be able to progress. To suggest that no-one can be attracted to conservative ideology is outright ignorance of one side of the debate.
John Major, Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke took her down after they saw how she destroyed the working class, they turned against her after the poll tax.
Her background was far from simple private education at Oxford father a fair sized employer and town mayor at a time when most British people lived in relative hardship and poverty leaving school at sixteen Mrs thatchers upbringing was very privileged by any standards
Hi and thanks for the question. No, not yet, and largely because they haven't. Perhaps I should. What has happened is that by stages everyone met in the middle: Blair adopted Thatcher's economic policies while adding to them the concept of social justice (see my video on Labour here: th-cam.com/video/xtfzkVsHZgM/w-d-xo.html. But what he also did was to reject Thatcher's dictum of social cohesion through a mono-culture and instead aim for social cohesion through multi-culturalism - if we are all different then we are all the same. Cameron did not have much to add to this and so largely adopted New-Labour policies, which after all were to all intents and purposes not so much thatcherite as thatcher-lite. Just as Blair could not very well reverse Thatcherite reforms, no more could Cameron get the social toothpaste back into the empty tube Blair left behind. And of course he had the pressing problems of the economic crisis to deal with, and that diverted a great deal of time and effort. And so it does, plus something to do with Europe - can't remember what that is, probably not that important. Hope this helps but if I do get around to a video I will try to let you know. Best wishes!
Thanks for your comment. If I understand your question correctly, I would suggest you would gain more from looking at the relationship between Thatcherism and capitalism rather than consumerism per se. Capitalism at its most broad can be understood as suggesting that if stuff is good, more stuff it better but it is more about the accumulation of capital than the consumption of products. Everything you own says something about you and increases your sense of personal heft, your stake in society. This is not unrelated to consumerism but consumerism is better understood as a desire to experience or consume rather than to acquire and accumulate. Its the difference between buying shares and churning mobile phones. Consumerism works best when things are being replaced ... hope this helps. Doc
That was enjoyable, though spoiled by repeating the non-fact that she was responsible for the much quoted line about being a failure if you find yourself on a bus after 30. It wasn't actually Thatcher that said it but another Tory whose name I've forgotten
Thanks for that and thanks also for pointing out the misappropriation of the bus thing. Looks like no one really knows who came up with it (fullfact.org/news/margaret-thatcher-bus/) but it clearly wasn't one of her many memorable phrases. Do let me know if there are any other areas you would like to see covered and all the best.
@@damianbylightning6823 in terms of the economy is maybe clearer than anywhere else. Torries dont give much To the public sector, but rather take, labour do. All other questions differences are blurred.
@@missthunderstormable Ok. However, a delve into the figures makes us think about assumptions and language and us finding what we want and or expect to find. Tories in 50s went on a splurge - public sector housing boom time. Heath splurged cash again early 70s. This was followed by Callaghan introducing what later became known as a central factor of 'Thatcherism' - increasing central control of spending by lower tier govt. But, Thatcher - 'a snatcher' increased the scope of the state and nationalised anything not nailed down, which wasn't industrial - including local govt, health, police, courts, education... The role, scope and breadth of the state expanded massively under Thatcher. Callaghan presaged Thatcher. Thatcher presaged New Labour. Thatcher's centralism gave Blair the powers to destroy what was left of the UK. On wider economics - case study Marxism shows the nonsense. Marxism is a re-tread of Judaeo-Christianity. Stages of history is Eden - the fall - purgatory - coming of kingdom of heaven. Marxists ain't even embarrassed by the similarities - they call them 'coincidences'. Marxism then takes bits of Hegel - pretty much a conservative voice (though claimed by all). It then adds classical liberalism and bits of stinky old French socialism - which helped to inspire National Socialism - though historians often sweep this under the proverbial carpet, for some reason - it isn't just that historians are often left biased. IMO, I think they don't talk about Fr soc's structural links to both fascism and Nazism because it's one of those things that exposes the idiocy of all that left-right crap that they've been using. Outside of that we have social liberalism - which 'is the origin of modern social democracy and modern socialism' if you listen to the lying historians. Again, the links to fascism ask difficult questions that historians would rather ignore. This video is in the trad of lying, simplicity, naivety and taking seriously what liars and the deluded have said. Don't fall for it. Universities have produced lies and liars. Take no historian on the Nazi period seriously, if they use the left-right spectrum without qualification. Not all historians are liars, deluded stupid and lazy. These divisions are essentially religious and cultural divisions and debates - and go back a long time before modern politics. They are all interconnected positions that are interwoven. They get their alleged meanings from their use in the world - but our perception and reality can be two completely separate things. Don't believe the lies and ignore stupid people who spread them through ignorance.
Didn't you just use the term 'Neo-liberal' as exactly synonymous with 'Neo-conservative'? I don't think they're the same. And which one would you say Thatcher actually was? If either. Of course, she wasn't a social philosopher, she was a politician, and she never really had to have a well-founded theory of anything--she just had to be rhetorically convincing. We'll understand her better if we study her personality (and its many defects, like ego-inflation and borderline sociopathy). Think how many of her major speeches were about herself and her determination to make Britain over in her own image. That was her political philosophy--that and a digest of Hayek adapted for sloganeering. What we need to understand about Margaret Thatcher is what statement she was trying to make with that preposterous hairdo. There are many animals that try to intimidate by looking bigger than they really are. Lady Thatcher was one of those.
Hi and thanks for the comment. I did this video a while ago and my thinking has evolved a bit since. I would generally argue that neo-conservatism is a largely US phenomenon, based on conservative social values, monetarist economic policy and an aggressive foreign policy. Hence I would not necessarily hold Thatcher to that standard but I would argue that she was a neo-liberal, and define that as aggressive monetarism in economic policy and a belief in the efficacy of that economic policy as social policy. The way I see it, neo-liberalism argues that if everyone is a good little capitalist, not only is society as a whole playing by the same rules but also that those rules are predicated on rugged individualism, which leads that society to steady and widespread improvement. Does that sounds reasonable? And thanks for the interest!
What twaddle . Wages have stagnated for 30 years . The middle class has shrunk dramatically . Inequality has increased. The economy slowed and floats on finacilisation of capital.
Thanks, but I am not entirely sure what your point is here. I'm describing the theory, not its long term effect. Happy to discuss that further if you like. Appreciate the interest all the same.
Thatcher did not invent capitalism but neo-conservatism, both in the UK and in the USA, was built around it. The point is really that while one-nation conservatives and social democrats both saw a need to tame capitalism, the new right believed that unleashing it in its most pure form would benefit not only the economy but also society, helping the rich and the poor and bringing in social cohesion. And we are still dealing with the consequences.
5:15 was a huge oversimplification but, for my simple mind, it was just perfect 😂 Thanks! One question: how did the Thatcher government create the conditions that made the some of the lower class become entrepreneurs and the some of upper class have a transfer of assets?
Hi and thanks for the interest and the compliments. You are quite right that it is a simplification but it hopefully gets the point across. In terms of your question, if I were to do the video again (and perhaps I should) I would emphasise that it was less a transfer of capital from the wealthy to the middle class than a dilution: most of the capital that was transferred was transferred from the state in the form of privatisation. This is particularly true of British Telecom and British Gas. You can see evidence of it here: th-cam.com/video/Gt7cvcg22n0/w-d-xo.html and here: th-cam.com/video/nedVpG-GjkE/w-d-xo.html. At the same time, the massive deregulation of the city (or the Big Bang: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)) in the city made investing more accessible, understandable and cheaper. Hope this helps but do let me know if you have any more questions! Cheers, Bert
Conservatism: The Government cannot improve your situation, poor people. No more benefits. Work harder. Also Conservatism: Keep us in Government so we can improve the lives of the wealthy. Have another tax cut. Oh, you want a bail-out too?
She was all about the price of everything but the VALUE of nothing. By the way how did the whole "Labour MPs don't like Corbyn because they don't want to lose their jobs" thing work out for you? xD
Can I offer you this: drbertfegg.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/i-come-to-bury-thatcher-not-to-praise.html And I really don't think that you can look at the result as a victory for Labour - the tories were there for the taking and they blew it. I still really don't think that many MPs are paid up Corbynistas, and the election changed very little. Thanks for the interest!
The initial prediction when the snap election was called was that Conservatives would gain 70 seats... they lost 30. The whole reason May called that election was to crush Labour once and for all, but the Corbyn-inspired people power defied that. It annoys me that people want to discredit Corbyn at every turn and go back to a neo-liberal, austerity-imposing, warmongering Labour party. I guess it's your job to try and be objective about these things but I think it can be easy to fall prey to media narratives...
I think you can be critical of Corbyn without necessarily wanting to go back to austerity, warmongering or neo-liberalism. It's not a binary choice. And equally I think you can ask how it was that the Conservatives ran a campaign that was beyond awful and yet still won more seats than Labour. Corbyn should have crushed the conservatives but he did not. And this is not just the media, left or right. It's the party itself. Corbyn has had his chance but has not seized it. That is everyone's tragedy. And now he, like may, is just a place holder for whatever comes next. Lorum impsum.
Which other Labour MP could have rallied the kind of support and grassroots energy that Corbyn did? I'm a little sick of people saying that if only a party was more centrist it would win more votes. It's never true anymore because times have changed. It IS a binary choice right now - the majority of Labour MPs abstained on a major austerity vote and everyone who went up against Corbyn in the leadership elections advocated for austerity-lite rather than INVESTMENT which is what our country is in desperate need of. Also, you're failing to recognise the MAJOR blame the media has in Corbyn's shortfall in the election. They've tried to crush him at every turn because he actually wants to challenge authority and deliver for the people rather than being a weak-minded sycophant who shills for the military-industrial complex and banks. It's not like people were given a fair presentation of the choices in that election, when so many brutal attacks were made on Corbyn's character by the media.
I'm all for investment over austerity - that was rather the focus of the Thatcher piece - and hand up I have no idea which Labour MP could have rallied the grass roots support etc etc but that doesn't change the fact that the election was there for the taking and Labour lost. Also while the Labour party no doubt recovered some ground it also lost safe seats and other marginals it had held since 97. I have no personal animus to Corbyn other than his odd stance on Europe - he seems a genuine guy - but at the same time he is clearly not the one who is going to topple the Conservatives. Anyway., I am really enjoying the give and take here but I have to get on with other stuff. I do appreciate the engagement and am delighted my videos have given cause for debate. It is when we don't do that that things go downhill. And I certainly agree that ideas and positioned are there to be challenged. Thanks and best wishes!
I have been accused of cynicism, to be sure, but I have never done anything to match the cynicism of May's decision to call an election and certainly nothing remotely close to the level of cynicism embraced by her so-called campaign!
True but i thought it was more arrogance on May's part to try and secure a mandate. However, her campaign was certainly run on the basis of ensuring everyone else's cynicism. Despite the confusing outcome in terms of current government, i'm glad a lot people didn't vote from that place, i certainly didn't. What do you think as to the position of the Blairite movement? Is it finished for the foreseeable future?
You know what. I think we need to look at this as a reappraisal of the entire neo-liberal theory. NL argues that if you look after the economy, society will look after itself and it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore that that is, to use a technical term, utter bollocks. Capitalism is unsurpassed at generating wealth, that is true, but it does not spread the wealth the way the theory works and it prioritises short term gain over long term cost, shortsightedness that is going to get very real very soon. And then there is the simple observation that its premise - stuff brings happiness and more stuff brings more happiness - has been substantially disproved - see here for details news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-80-years-harvard-study-has-been-showing-how-to-live-a-healthy-and-happy-life/ I am working on this argument (storify.com/Paul_Floyd/so-farewell-then-neo-liberalism) but the current generation of political leaders are entirely bereft of integrity and authority so it is time for the kids to rise! You will have to deal with shit-sandwich of a legacy after all. On behalf of my generation, I apologise
That certainly doesn't work, i think neo-liberalism puts far too much trust in individuals, greed is inevitable in a freemarket without proper regulations. Also, like you said about short-term goals, it brings into question who invests in things like green energy, better industry practices and challenging global warming? There is no real financial incentive to and so it's neglected. Great Wealth is useless to society if its unfairly distributed and never invested for the better, take America for example, richest country but shocking levels of poverty and lack of vital amenities such as universal healthcare. I can promise you that now young people have finally had something to vote for we're not going to go away easily. I'm only 18 but talking to other people in my 6th form the level of engagement was quite incredible, all who could vote did and were excited and proud to have voted. I think we might have scared your generation a bit especially based of the very patronising media explanation for the youth vote.
Good - I urge that you do something about it! The situation is an almighty mess and none of the current crop of politicians is inclined or able to do much. Good luck!
2:30 do you mean section 28? i don't think that was evil at all. kids go to school to learn maths, english, science., IT. if want to teach my children about trends or what fashion they subscribe to or sexual education then that's my job as the parent, not the schools jobs. especially when you cannot guarantee unbiasedness. you're talking about indoctrination, not education. schools are there to teach, not to parent. parents are there to parent.
What's said about Clause 28 here is utter phooey! Can't take this guy seriously - shows very poor understanding of the intersection of public policy, ideology and political theory. Clause 28 was only necessary in Thatcherite terms because she kept the state's power in education and increased the central govt's control over local govt. To control she had to provide a moral lead for the majority - and it was a majority who disapproved of what it was educational experts and activists wanted to do and there was disquiet about how this dovetailed with the left's emerging adoption of Thatcherism (left now fully buys into this garbled version of market freedom and applies it to biological sex. Thatcherism was a garbled version of socialism - lefty idiots repaid the comp...). In order to keep things going, Thatcher really had no choice but to act. If she had dismantled the inefficient state education system and supported individual effort, there'd be no need to legislate. Section 28 was necessary for the integrity of Thatcher's mixed-up public policy. She liked and respected the state and she sought to use central power to control things. It was socialist/utilitarian/consequentialist logic that drove the idiocy that was Section 28 - but calling it evil is just silly and reflects the paying of Danegeld . Thatcher had a number of choices in such policy areas - state control status-quo, privatisation via vouchers, a mix of the two and other options as well. She chose to retain the apparatus of state education. This meant she had to deliver for the majority - not for the system or 'experts'. This is a fight no govt can win, long term. It isn't the people who control what happens to their children in state institutions - it's the powers in the system. Thatcher, to her credit, opposed this snobbery, dictatorship and elitism. Other options would have freed her of this need to control and would have provided individual choice as an alternative. This is always the downfall with util/con and socialist ideas. FYI if this idiocy were actually evil, as is suggested in this video, then why is one piece of utilitarian and consequentialist logic morally good and one that goes in a direction that reflects the expressed will of the vast majority 'evil'? Askin' for a friend.
@@ericpreston8877 Ooh look, another retard who hasn't yet realised that Thatcherism is kept alive by the left. I have no idea why the British left are crawling with little Maggies.
@@ericpreston8877 My point is that Labour is deeply influenced by Thatcherism - not just Blair and Starmer. It's there in moral cretins like Corbyn too. Welsh Labour's empire is run along Thatcher lines - Labour members and voters appear too stupid to work this out. Imagining Thatcherism as 'an evil' of 'the other side' is a mumbo-jumbo attempt at exorcism. Welsh Labour is a prop of Labour's left ergo it is anti-Thatcherite etc. This is just childish and dangerous nonsense. I see no reason why this view is 'US-style libertarianism'. Thatcherism owes a great debt to the British socialist tradition. This helps explain the extraordinary reaction the left had to her. It is a little bit like Nazism/fascism, in that sense. The pudding that is 'fascism' mostly existed in leftist tropes before the rise of classic Italian fascism. Nazi ideas such as racial genocide first emerged in modern politics in the 1st half of the 19th century - on 'the left'. I should add that the Holocaust was 1st imagined by a Marxist socialist, in 1912. The idea of using technology to eradicate the 'unworthy' in an efficient manner, has utilitarian, consequentialist, modernist, technocratic and socialist connections. Lefties have been all over this kinda stuff - like a priapic male feminist on a rape victim. There's more - but that's enough for now.
@@damianbylightning6823 Lol, the old Nazism is actually socialism canard. Eugenics began among Democrats in the American South. Some of these Democrats were economically populist - but just as many were Bourbon Conservatives. Indeed, the Klan quickly shifted gears in the early 20th century and became A Republican institution in the North (such as the Indiana Klan, which elected a conservative Republican governor of that State in Edward L. Jackson). The Italian fascists and the Nazis privatized much of their economy (ref. "Against The Mainstream: Privatization In Nazi Germany"). You were saying?
Thank you for this! Big help for my 2nd year exam, very well explained and detailed!
It's a pleasure and I am glad it helped. Good luck with your exam
A good video. Margaret Thatcher mentioned her greatest legacy was Tony Blair and new labour.
@Squirrel That's Millibands legacy of shifting the party left and creating the £3 membership fee where middle class Marxists rushed into the Labour membership, corbyn being popular with the working class is a lie.
Yep! Brilliantly witty comment I’ve seen that interview
@@xm3405 did Lord Rothermere tell you that? or I guess 1 medium size town being between Labour and a coalition government in 2017 was just a huge statistical lie. I guess 100,000 dead (and climbing at time of writing) is better than those evil marxists that wanted to end homelessness, actually fund public infrastructure and improve the material conditions of millions through reform was simply too much for us freedom loving brits. Finally, to quote some neo-conservatives "the free market will set you free".
@@zeebee8527 Defending Marxists... you obviously never lived under Marxists, "Comrade."
I'm playing Thatcher in a short play for college, so I've been watching videos and reading articles. I'm not so good at understanding politics though, so this helps a lot.
Thanks for taking the time to say so and delighted to help
Don't stop here because it is misleading. 1) Thatcher didn't increase the middle-class. The working class who would have been in factories are not 'entrepreneurs' they are still working class but now non-unionised and in warehouses, care-homes, shops, delivery lorries and call centres and going to food-banks. 2) In 1981 the Right Wing of Labour formed a new party and split the Labour vote. In the elections of 1983,87,92 the combined SDP and Labour vote exceeded the Tory vote. 3) During the Blair years Labour lost 5M working class voters 4) currently the only people voting Tory are the over 55s (of all classes) who benefited from house price inflation. People under 40 (of all classes) now vote Labour. See th-cam.com/video/-NJk3JQIfuU/w-d-xo.html
Modest Proposal well yeah, a 9-minute video alone is never enough research. And while your comment is informative, mine is over 2 years old and I haven’t touched anything Thatcher-related since then, so it’s a little misplaced.
@@MaxMallard That's no excuse! I suppose because it's been 2 years again you think you're off the hook this time too!!?? Get back into it. I want an essay on the repercussions of Thatcher's social, economic and political policies by the end of the week. At least 5 pages, thank you.
And don't even think about using Chatgpt - I'll know.
....that'll be all.
@@465marko yessir, professor sir!
Currently studying Social Policy & Welfare, this really helped me understand how things developed over the years! Thank you!
Such a brillin presentation. Loved it. Thank you.
Glad I could help!
Thank you so much, been panic revising for my history test tomorrow - this really helped! :)
Thanks for giving the full contextual Thatcher quote.
I also read it that she believes that "society" does not exist as a "committee" forming a judgement or collective decision but individual people or families making their own decisions on purchases, and work, based on their own income, skills, opinions, aims and values.
Many of these merge into common themes when looking at the collective result, but these are the result of millions of "microdecisions" on their choice of car, holiday destination, saving or spending.
Excellent as ever. Thanks you for an objective review of "no society" quote and its context. It is similar to Milton Friedman's views that "people" do things, not governments. She considerewd that "Society" is not a unified body that makes a decision that is passed down like a jury.
And society is not a separate entity. People make their own decisions on purchasing and savings, and there are 60 million of these. Collectively these form a wide distribution of people's decision and actions. But society is not an entity in the way that a soviet or workers council would be.
Judson Joist it’s what everyone does! Collectivise to a point. If it’s for the weak how did Russia become a superpower through it
It's similar to what Nietzsche said about the common good. It doesn't exist because different people have different things that they want. That's the libertarian criticism of democracy/government, that it affects to help society as a whole but only helps special interests (big business, for sure, but a lot of different groups). Therefore, the way to have the happiest society is for the government to not interfere and let people pursue their own ends.
@Judson Joist Insurance is a form of collectivism. Everyone pays for a policy but only a few make a claim. The working class had their own safety net this way (e.g. health insurance, job insurance) before the government took it over. Now they say you're against the working man if you try to get the government out of things. They're cluelessly brainwashed.
People actually make decisions based on their material conditions. Her model of the world just so happens to hand the most power to those with the most wealth. Weird that.
@@izdatsumcpa position exclusively held by the rich and powerful or those they've duped into adopting their worldview.
Very informative video as it explains the confusion and divide within Labour at the moment as well as explaining Thatcher and her legacy. :)
great video, thoroughly eye-opening. thank you so much!
Delighted it helped and many thanks for taking the time to say so.
I have qualifications coming out my arse can’t find work. My brothers partner has a PhD in criminal forensics and can’t get a job my brother is an amateur pilot with tons of qualifications and he works part time for screw fix. Neo liberalism/capitalism doesn’t work and never has and always needs socialism in one form or another to help the opponents of socialism
John Are you saying the state should create jobs for the sake of jobs, rather than because they are needed? That you deserve something from society by virtue of choosing to study a subject for years?
Kyle Jacobson yes
People deserve something from society simply by existing and having needs.
Taking politics a-level. Watching 6 years later but want to say thank you! Subscribed
Thanks so much! Let me know if there's any more videos you'd like to see. Good luck!
In Australia we missed Thatcherism until John Howard forced it on us. We got GST (like VAT) after he said in opposition that we’ll “never ever” get the GST. Was adopted by all conservative premiers.
I remember Thatcher saying the senior staff of British Rail weren’t very good or they’d have jobs in private enterprise.
Hi I liked this video a lot and I really hope you can answer this question. Can you please recommend some further reading especially about her economic policy and why she favoured monetary policy over fiscal.
Thank you so much. This really helped with Fairclough's book: Language and Power.
Great news and thanks for letting me know. Good luck!
Good primer to understand why the political landscape in the England is as is. Thank you!
Im doing a Debate tournament over prominent female figures, and I’ve gotten Thatcher! Thankfully there are videos like these to explain!
Thanks so much! Delighted you found it useful.
Thank you very much. Your explanation was clear, precise and straight to the point.
"the trouble with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money"
Marco The problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of North Sea petroleum money
@@anthonytarczynski5423 💪💪💪
The problem with Thatcher quotes is you eventually run out of them because shes dead
The Political Revolution lmfao classic
Who are these "other people"
Very interesting presentation. It really also explains the rise of the extreme right-wing parties:
Manufacturing jobs were lost. So part of them were transferred to white collar jobs. And part of the former manufacturing workers just never found work again. And they are the basis for the extreme right parties...
Thanks for that; feedback always welcome; even more so when it is positive!
Thatcher destroyed parties like the National Front! This is never stated by commentators.
An excellent video, it provided me a lot of interesting informations. However, I've a question: why did you say that the middle class grew numerically during Thatcher's government? We always hear that, in this period, inequality hiked, as well as Gini coefficient. Inequality growth is one of the main criticism we hear against neoliberal policies, but what you said about the broadening of middle class is really interesting.
Antonio, this is an excellent point. It also reminds me of one of Thatcher's memorable quotes. When another MP confronted her about income inequality, she cleverly stated that all levels of society were better off than in 1979 (the beginning of her term).That was likely true. She went on to say "what the honourable gentleman is saying is that he would rather have the poor poorer, so long as the rich have less." It was a very clever response. Like her or hate her, Britain needed a strong hand after the economic turmoil of the 1970s. And they got it that in Thatcher.
Inequality can increase and still have a larger middle class. It just means the top 1% have done even better.
Personal Responsibility and the state giving freedom to its citizens to choose what they need and don't need or want but the cost of the poor adds up eventually in welfare!!! Corbyn is proving we need education to give people POWER in KNOWLEDGE!!
Thank you so much for this amazing video! I wondered if by any chance you might point me towards some literature that backs up your conclusions regarding the targeting of voters by Labour? I'm writing a dissertation on Political Marketing by British Labour party and it just might help me so so much! Thank you again, +1 subscriber
Hi and thanks for that. The definitive history of the New Labour Project is, for me at any rate, Servants of the People by Andrew Rawnlsey. You should also check out So Who Do We Vote for Now by John Harris. Good luck!
Thank you so much! Have a great day!
great video for me personally some good insights. I don't suppose you have read any good books on Thatcherism have you ?
I didn‘t get this,How did tatcher Managed To transform assets from upper to middle class? Low interest? Or a particular law?
I think the key policies were the lower interests and less bureaucracy which in turn encouraged entrepreneurship. This was coupled with efficiency measures that reduced the capital of the massively rich people which in turn ended up in the hands of new middle class entrepreneurs. Not to mention her success with initiating the service sector.
@@soboyoko so disclosure i've always been on the conservative side of things, but I've been trying to take a hard look at if my preconceptions of Thatcher (being overall good) are correct. I'm US so don't have an intimate knowledge of the UK perspective but my US mindset says that anything that benefits the middle class (or helps to prop it up) is good overall.. for the nation and the people. You said her success with initiating the service sector.. I was wondering specifically what you meant with that?
You didn't talk about Clause 28.
It was not that important except to the woke class - homosexuality should not be promoted, but people respected.
that handwriting though...anyway where is clause 28??
One part of the slide show that I did not like was the way you pictured the classes, the upper class is in no way near as large as the lower or middle class.
OK, but it was not supposed to reflect reality, rather to make a point. I hope the rest was useful.
Yes, the rest of it was very nice :) Thank you.
Good video, and as a result both parties are now basket cases!
If she was all about maintaining level playing fields. Then why did she preside over the greatest increase in wealth inequality in decades? Why did unemployment rise so much during and after her administration, why did she make it a policy to increase unemployment. Why do people struggle to have housing, cars, etc after years of governments following her example. She was full of it.
I think there is a ridiculous assumption in free market thought, that there is equality of opportunity. How can there be equality of opportunity when some people inherit the money and resources to be able to make investments that become highly profitable when others in society are unable to raise the funds to be able to spend the large sums of money needed to make money?
I also doubt that the Thatcher government was acting in a disinterested way by taking a more hands off approach to public services when in your visual on the demographics that vote conservative are the same upper class people who would benefit from the opening of the government monopolies on public services to private investors, who are guaranteed substantial profits from the whole population.
This is not a legitimate risk (it only takes a team of accountants to do a cost benefit analysis on the usage data on the public service as it is being sold), and the money invested is not used to seed new industries, or develop the economy in any way.
To me all this is is a way of removing the parties responsibility for the welfare of their electorates whilst lining the "right sort" of people as well as their donors pockets (ensuring that after their career in politics they will have a well paying corporate board position, helping big business to find the ear of their government official colleagues).
and I would not necessarily dispute any of that; in the 15 minutes available I seek only to explain the theory of the policy. So for example, I agree with the idea of selling off concil houses but think that the failure to use the proceeds to replace the lost stock was a monumental error, which runs parallel to your point about reinvestment. Thanks for the interest!
I don't understand why you think privatisation hurts the average man due to the profit motive. Can you please explain your thinking behind this?
@@drfegg288 Why does the government need to build houses for the people? Isn't there something tremendously wrong with the country if it needs to do that?
Well firstly you're right, there isn't equal opportunity, and in the general theory, there never will be equal opportunity, as not everybody can be the same. It was about making the best of that situation. When it comes to taxation, there is a sort of 'Not in My Back Yard' approach, where you want taxes, but only for others. If you reduce Taxes for all, the rich are happier and the poor have more money in their pockets. Many on the left feel that a higher corporation tax is in order, which would mean less money to spend for the company, and a probable loss of jobs. Society is full of entrepreneurs, and yes, people like Richard Branson are few and far between, but it is still certainly possible to achieve. It is a hard world, I will admit, but the harder you work, the easier it becomes for you. Low taxes with limited subsiding and nationalising (save for the NHS, i don't know why anybody wouldn't want it), as Nigel Lawson had, to get the lowering of taxes, in such a way as to grow the economy, and therefore a higher tax revenue. What benefit does government intervention in the economy bring? it's like a child let lose in mission control, wanting to press all the buttons that you know is just going to go badly wrong. And your assumption that the Conservative vote increased among the rich (which is the jist I'm sort of getting from the second paragraph, not sure if my interpretation is correct) is quite false, as I'm fairly certain the rich already voted conservative. Also If there are Private investors in a certain field, (which is what I'm also getting from the same paragraph) they naturally want to be the best, and this competition encourages business growth, meaning more employed, so more people can pay money in taxes, which can then be spent in public services.
@@drfegg288 Not using the proceeds of sales of council houses to replace the stocks sold off was not an error, it was absolutely deliberate.
have you got any videos comparing may/thatcher regarding a question like: to what extent have/haven't conservatives abandoned thatcherism?
Hi. I am working on it! In the meantime, you can check out this ... storify.com/Paul_Floyd/to-what-extent-has-the-modern-conservative-party-u
thank you so so much- anxiously awaiting it! will check out the article
Pleasure. I will try to get something out once the manifesto is released. Best, Bert
th-cam.com/video/PPNxJAYqjrU/w-d-xo.html
economic stability - easier said then done.
So she was saying empty big words
Excellent video. In your opinion was the country in a better state after Margaret Thatcher then before her?
Billy Albert The Rich were much Richer and the Poor were much Poorer, when she was kicked out by her own party.
@@elchapo2790 Heavily incorrect, her economic policies caused 3 recessions and many deaths. Blair refused to bring back Labour financial regulation from the 70s that thatcher repealed when she came to power directly leading to the financial crisis.
Everyone was richer and she left the country better off
This was a really well done short explanation of Thatcherism and it’s consequences. Good job 👏
hi this really helped me i love this!
Yup. That's all I have to say about that
Brilliant video.....was just settling in for more great stuff and then it ended......boooooo!
Thanks so much! Just let me know what's missing and I'll get on it! Cheers, Paul
Labour are no longer the working class party they once were, I feel more connected with 50% of the tories( brexiters) than I do the most of labour, coming from a working class lad in a labour strong hold its very strange the shift in political attraction to the right wing politics & conservatism that I never thought I would be attracted by
El Ryy you’re not attracted to it you never had an ideology you’re trying to choose who you think is winning. If you think literal members of the 1% are on your side you’re mental. They came here in 1066 after beating the shit out of the English and have been in power ever since. They’re the 1%
Judson Joist true but left wing (Irish/Scots) Nationalism not the bland boring vile English/British nationalism
@@JohnKobaRuddy So your argument is that no-one is naturally conservative, and that we just follow who is winning? If that were the case, once Labour got into power, Labour would always win. I'm 20 and from a very working class background, living from paycheck to paycheck, but I budget well and understand the importance of both microeconomic and macroeconomic stability. I also believe in the importance of free choice for the individual, in order to be able to progress. To suggest that no-one can be attracted to conservative ideology is outright ignorance of one side of the debate.
Sounds reminiscent of the famous quote:
"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"
What a great way to teach
Brilliant video. Very informative
She despised the working person even though she came from a simple background. Fired by her own party.
John Major, Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke took her down after they saw how she destroyed the working class, they turned against her after the poll tax.
Her background was far from simple private education at Oxford father a fair sized employer and town mayor at a time when most British people lived in relative hardship and poverty leaving school at sixteen Mrs thatchers upbringing was very privileged by any standards
Is there any videos on the extent to which Conservatives have drifted away from Thatchersism?
Hi and thanks for the question. No, not yet, and largely because they haven't. Perhaps I should. What has happened is that by stages everyone met in the middle: Blair adopted Thatcher's economic policies while adding to them the concept of social justice (see my video on Labour here: th-cam.com/video/xtfzkVsHZgM/w-d-xo.html. But what he also did was to reject Thatcher's dictum of social cohesion through a mono-culture and instead aim for social cohesion through multi-culturalism - if we are all different then we are all the same. Cameron did not have much to add to this and so largely adopted New-Labour policies, which after all were to all intents and purposes not so much thatcherite as thatcher-lite. Just as Blair could not very well reverse Thatcherite reforms, no more could Cameron get the social toothpaste back into the empty tube Blair left behind. And of course he had the pressing problems of the economic crisis to deal with, and that diverted a great deal of time and effort. And so it does, plus something to do with Europe - can't remember what that is, probably not that important.
Hope this helps but if I do get around to a video I will try to let you know.
Best wishes!
and in the meantime, you could check out this ... storify.com/Paul_Floyd/to-what-extent-has-the-modern-conservative-party-u
Ahhh thank you so much!!!!!!!
Excellent video
Thanks for taking the time to say so. Cheers
do thatcherism has sth to do with consumerism ?
Thanks for your comment. If I understand your question correctly, I would suggest you would gain more from looking at the relationship between Thatcherism and capitalism rather than consumerism per se. Capitalism at its most broad can be understood as suggesting that if stuff is good, more stuff it better but it is more about the accumulation of capital than the consumption of products. Everything you own says something about you and increases your sense of personal heft, your stake in society. This is not unrelated to consumerism but consumerism is better understood as a desire to experience or consume rather than to acquire and accumulate. Its the difference between buying shares and churning mobile phones. Consumerism works best when things are being replaced ... hope this helps. Doc
i am from denmark hallo
very interesting
Much thanks
9 minutes, he couldn't do it
That was extremely helpful thank you
Delighted you liked it. Thanks. Do please watch the other vids!
That was enjoyable, though spoiled by repeating the non-fact that she was responsible for the much quoted line about being a failure if you find yourself on a bus after 30. It wasn't actually Thatcher that said it but another Tory whose name I've forgotten
Thanks for that and thanks also for pointing out the misappropriation of the bus thing. Looks like no one really knows who came up with it (fullfact.org/news/margaret-thatcher-bus/) but it clearly wasn't one of her many memorable phrases. Do let me know if there are any other areas you would like to see covered and all the best.
Great video!!
not exaclty unbiased are we. 'evil little law'?
No tbf it is a nasty regressive piece of legislation that I’m sure even most modern conservatives would shudder at
@@frankiebogdan4228 well, they would publically at least
Thank you helped me to understand what left and right wing politics means
There is no such thing as 'left' and 'right' in politics! Most of the division is created by the language we use.
At least in terms of economy
@@missthunderstormable OK, please be clear - I'm a bit stupid.
A distinction exists or doesn't exist in terms of the economy?
@@damianbylightning6823 in terms of the economy is maybe clearer than anywhere else. Torries dont give much
To the public sector, but rather take, labour do. All other questions differences are blurred.
@@missthunderstormable Ok.
However, a delve into the figures makes us think about assumptions and language and us finding what we want and or expect to find. Tories in 50s went on a splurge - public sector housing boom time. Heath splurged cash again early 70s. This was followed by Callaghan introducing what later became known as a central factor of 'Thatcherism' - increasing central control of spending by lower tier govt.
But, Thatcher - 'a snatcher' increased the scope of the state and nationalised anything not nailed down, which wasn't industrial - including local govt, health, police, courts, education... The role, scope and breadth of the state expanded massively under Thatcher. Callaghan presaged Thatcher. Thatcher presaged New Labour. Thatcher's centralism gave Blair the powers to destroy what was left of the UK.
On wider economics - case study Marxism shows the nonsense. Marxism is a re-tread of Judaeo-Christianity. Stages of history is Eden - the fall - purgatory - coming of kingdom of heaven. Marxists ain't even embarrassed by the similarities - they call them 'coincidences'.
Marxism then takes bits of Hegel - pretty much a conservative voice (though claimed by all). It then adds classical liberalism and bits of stinky old French socialism - which helped to inspire National Socialism - though historians often sweep this under the proverbial carpet, for some reason - it isn't just that historians are often left biased. IMO, I think they don't talk about Fr soc's structural links to both fascism and Nazism because it's one of those things that exposes the idiocy of all that left-right crap that they've been using.
Outside of that we have social liberalism - which 'is the origin of modern social democracy and modern socialism' if you listen to the lying historians. Again, the links to fascism ask difficult questions that historians would rather ignore.
This video is in the trad of lying, simplicity, naivety and taking seriously what liars and the deluded have said. Don't fall for it. Universities have produced lies and liars. Take no historian on the Nazi period seriously, if they use the left-right spectrum without qualification. Not all historians are liars, deluded stupid and lazy.
These divisions are essentially religious and cultural divisions and debates - and go back a long time before modern politics. They are all interconnected positions that are interwoven. They get their alleged meanings from their use in the world - but our perception and reality can be two completely separate things. Don't believe the lies and ignore stupid people who spread them through ignorance.
Didn't you just use the term 'Neo-liberal' as exactly synonymous with 'Neo-conservative'? I don't think they're the same. And which one would you say Thatcher actually was? If either.
Of course, she wasn't a social philosopher, she was a politician, and she never really had to have a well-founded theory of anything--she just had to be rhetorically convincing. We'll understand her better if we study her personality (and its many defects, like ego-inflation and borderline sociopathy). Think how many of her major speeches were about herself and her determination to make Britain over in her own image. That was her political philosophy--that and a digest of Hayek adapted for sloganeering.
What we need to understand about Margaret Thatcher is what statement she was trying to make with that preposterous hairdo. There are many animals that try to intimidate by looking bigger than they really are. Lady Thatcher was one of those.
Hi and thanks for the comment. I did this video a while ago and my thinking has evolved a bit since. I would generally argue that neo-conservatism is a largely US phenomenon, based on conservative social values, monetarist economic policy and an aggressive foreign policy. Hence I would not necessarily hold Thatcher to that standard but I would argue that she was a neo-liberal, and define that as aggressive monetarism in economic policy and a belief in the efficacy of that economic policy as social policy. The way I see it, neo-liberalism argues that if everyone is a good little capitalist, not only is society as a whole playing by the same rules but also that those rules are predicated on rugged individualism, which leads that society to steady and widespread improvement. Does that sounds reasonable? And thanks for the interest!
You're pretty cool
Very kind of you to say so.
Thatcher and Reagan hated the proletariat...
Well said
What twaddle . Wages have stagnated for 30 years . The middle class has shrunk dramatically . Inequality has increased. The economy slowed and floats on finacilisation of capital.
Thanks, but I am not entirely sure what your point is here. I'm describing the theory, not its long term effect. Happy to discuss that further if you like. Appreciate the interest all the same.
Thatcher should have lived in the victorian era, 🤮
great work sir.. thank you !
Thanks! Do let me know if you have any more questions.
Bert Fegg u mean i should go with how capitalism imerged beacause of Thatcher and how it changed britain s economy and the world in general??
Bert Fegg i wonder if this works as a thesis statement ?!
Thatcher did not invent capitalism but neo-conservatism, both in the UK and in the USA, was built around it. The point is really that while one-nation conservatives and social democrats both saw a need to tame capitalism, the new right believed that unleashing it in its most pure form would benefit not only the economy but also society, helping the rich and the poor and bringing in social cohesion. And we are still dealing with the consequences.
Bert Fegg. now i understand..
Another question sir;What do u think about others saying that with thatcherism the poor get poorer😕?!
5:15 was a huge oversimplification but, for my simple mind, it was just perfect 😂 Thanks!
One question: how did the Thatcher government create the conditions that made the some of the lower class become entrepreneurs and the some of upper class have a transfer of assets?
Hi and thanks for the interest and the compliments. You are quite right that it is a simplification but it hopefully gets the point across.
In terms of your question, if I were to do the video again (and perhaps I should) I would emphasise that it was less a transfer of capital from the wealthy to the middle class than a dilution: most of the capital that was transferred was transferred from the state in the form of privatisation. This is particularly true of British Telecom and British Gas. You can see evidence of it here: th-cam.com/video/Gt7cvcg22n0/w-d-xo.html and here: th-cam.com/video/nedVpG-GjkE/w-d-xo.html. At the same time, the massive deregulation of the city (or the Big Bang: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)) in the city made investing more accessible, understandable and cheaper. Hope this helps but do let me know if you have any more questions! Cheers, Bert
who actually suffered from Margret Thatcher's time
Blue collar
Conservatism: The Government cannot improve your situation, poor people. No more benefits. Work harder.
Also Conservatism: Keep us in Government so we can improve the lives of the wealthy. Have another tax cut. Oh, you want a bail-out too?
in the other hand you have general poverty its a tough choice, right?
6:54 bruh
Thatcherism in 5 seconds.................. "Lie, cheat and steal. I'm OK fuck everyone else."
How did she "steal"?
Adam Collins Who mentioned she stole? Thatcher ism the clue is in the name mate.
That sounds like a resentful way of saying "take individual responsibility". The law still stands, you can't steal, any transactions are voluntary.
A bit unilateral...
Greed, selfishness, cruelty, not caring about people, individualism, unbalanced capitalism, JUNK
Thatcher best PM Britain has ever had
You misspelled worst.
Churchill
STRONG AND STABLE
hahahahaahahaha
Quite. Just wait for my commentary on the 2017 election, coming soon!
James Davenport she's dead yipee
Your handwriting was distractingly unreadable😅
She was all about the price of everything but the VALUE of nothing. By the way how did the whole "Labour MPs don't like Corbyn because they don't want to lose their jobs" thing work out for you? xD
Can I offer you this: drbertfegg.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/i-come-to-bury-thatcher-not-to-praise.html And I really don't think that you can look at the result as a victory for Labour - the tories were there for the taking and they blew it. I still really don't think that many MPs are paid up Corbynistas, and the election changed very little. Thanks for the interest!
The initial prediction when the snap election was called was that Conservatives would gain 70 seats... they lost 30. The whole reason May called that election was to crush Labour once and for all, but the Corbyn-inspired people power defied that. It annoys me that people want to discredit Corbyn at every turn and go back to a neo-liberal, austerity-imposing, warmongering Labour party. I guess it's your job to try and be objective about these things but I think it can be easy to fall prey to media narratives...
I think you can be critical of Corbyn without necessarily wanting to go back to austerity, warmongering or neo-liberalism. It's not a binary choice. And equally I think you can ask how it was that the Conservatives ran a campaign that was beyond awful and yet still won more seats than Labour. Corbyn should have crushed the conservatives but he did not. And this is not just the media, left or right. It's the party itself. Corbyn has had his chance but has not seized it. That is everyone's tragedy. And now he, like may, is just a place holder for whatever comes next. Lorum impsum.
Which other Labour MP could have rallied the kind of support and grassroots energy that Corbyn did? I'm a little sick of people saying that if only a party was more centrist it would win more votes. It's never true anymore because times have changed. It IS a binary choice right now - the majority of Labour MPs abstained on a major austerity vote and everyone who went up against Corbyn in the leadership elections advocated for austerity-lite rather than INVESTMENT which is what our country is in desperate need of. Also, you're failing to recognise the MAJOR blame the media has in Corbyn's shortfall in the election. They've tried to crush him at every turn because he actually wants to challenge authority and deliver for the people rather than being a weak-minded sycophant who shills for the military-industrial complex and banks. It's not like people were given a fair presentation of the choices in that election, when so many brutal attacks were made on Corbyn's character by the media.
I'm all for investment over austerity - that was rather the focus of the Thatcher piece - and hand up I have no idea which Labour MP could have rallied the grass roots support etc etc but that doesn't change the fact that the election was there for the taking and Labour lost. Also while the Labour party no doubt recovered some ground it also lost safe seats and other marginals it had held since 97. I have no personal animus to Corbyn other than his odd stance on Europe - he seems a genuine guy - but at the same time he is clearly not the one who is going to topple the Conservatives. Anyway., I am really enjoying the give and take here but I have to get on with other stuff. I do appreciate the engagement and am delighted my videos have given cause for debate. It is when we don't do that that things go downhill. And I certainly agree that ideas and positioned are there to be challenged. Thanks and best wishes!
thatcher is my hero. new labour is evil, look what they did to the children of rotherham etc
Capitalism did that , not socialism .
you were proved cynical
I have been accused of cynicism, to be sure, but I have never done anything to match the cynicism of May's decision to call an election and certainly nothing remotely close to the level of cynicism embraced by her so-called campaign!
True but i thought it was more arrogance on May's part to try and secure a mandate. However, her campaign was certainly run on the basis of ensuring everyone else's cynicism. Despite the confusing outcome in terms of current government, i'm glad a lot people didn't vote from that place, i certainly didn't. What do you think as to the position of the Blairite movement? Is it finished for the foreseeable future?
You know what. I think we need to look at this as a reappraisal of the entire neo-liberal theory. NL argues that if you look after the economy, society will look after itself and it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore that that is, to use a technical term, utter bollocks. Capitalism is unsurpassed at generating wealth, that is true, but it does not spread the wealth the way the theory works and it prioritises short term gain over long term cost, shortsightedness that is going to get very real very soon. And then there is the simple observation that its premise - stuff brings happiness and more stuff brings more happiness - has been substantially disproved - see here for details news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-80-years-harvard-study-has-been-showing-how-to-live-a-healthy-and-happy-life/
I am working on this argument (storify.com/Paul_Floyd/so-farewell-then-neo-liberalism) but the current generation of political leaders are entirely bereft of integrity and authority so it is time for the kids to rise! You will have to deal with shit-sandwich of a legacy after all. On behalf of my generation, I apologise
That certainly doesn't work, i think neo-liberalism puts far too much trust in individuals, greed is inevitable in a freemarket without proper regulations. Also, like you said about short-term goals, it brings into question who invests in things like green energy, better industry practices and challenging global warming? There is no real financial incentive to and so it's neglected. Great Wealth is useless to society if its unfairly distributed and never invested for the better, take America for example, richest country but shocking levels of poverty and lack of vital amenities such as universal healthcare. I can promise you that now young people have finally had something to vote for we're not going to go away easily. I'm only 18 but talking to other people in my 6th form the level of engagement was quite incredible, all who could vote did and were excited and proud to have voted. I think we might have scared your generation a bit especially based of the very patronising media explanation for the youth vote.
Good - I urge that you do something about it! The situation is an almighty mess and none of the current crop of politicians is inclined or able to do much. Good luck!
Sensible woman
2:30 do you mean section 28? i don't think that was evil at all. kids go to school to learn maths, english, science., IT. if want to teach my children about trends or what fashion they subscribe to or sexual education then that's my job as the parent, not the schools jobs. especially when you cannot guarantee unbiasedness. you're talking about indoctrination, not education. schools are there to teach, not to parent. parents are there to parent.
This is a right wing analysis just to let you folks know
Ok, care to expand on that!? I'm keen to know ...
What is 'right-wing'?
She's a radical liberal that has conservative beliefs
*MARGARET THATCHER IS DEAD*
That is brand new information
What's said about Clause 28 here is utter phooey! Can't take this guy seriously - shows very poor understanding of the intersection of public policy, ideology and political theory.
Clause 28 was only necessary in Thatcherite terms because she kept the state's power in education and increased the central govt's control over local govt. To control she had to provide a moral lead for the majority - and it was a majority who disapproved of what it was educational experts and activists wanted to do and there was disquiet about how this dovetailed with the left's emerging adoption of Thatcherism (left now fully buys into this garbled version of market freedom and applies it to biological sex. Thatcherism was a garbled version of socialism - lefty idiots repaid the comp...).
In order to keep things going, Thatcher really had no choice but to act. If she had dismantled the inefficient state education system and supported individual effort, there'd be no need to legislate. Section 28 was necessary for the integrity of Thatcher's mixed-up public policy. She liked and respected the state and she sought to use central power to control things. It was socialist/utilitarian/consequentialist logic that drove the idiocy that was Section 28 - but calling it evil is just silly and reflects the paying of Danegeld .
Thatcher had a number of choices in such policy areas - state control status-quo, privatisation via vouchers, a mix of the two and other options as well. She chose to retain the apparatus of state education. This meant she had to deliver for the majority - not for the system or 'experts'. This is a fight no govt can win, long term. It isn't the people who control what happens to their children in state institutions - it's the powers in the system. Thatcher, to her credit, opposed this snobbery, dictatorship and elitism. Other options would have freed her of this need to control and would have provided individual choice as an alternative. This is always the downfall with util/con and socialist ideas.
FYI if this idiocy were actually evil, as is suggested in this video, then why is one piece of utilitarian and consequentialist logic morally good and one that goes in a direction that reflects the expressed will of the vast majority 'evil'?
Askin' for a friend.
Oh look, it's a retarded American style libertarian.
@@ericpreston8877 Ooh look, another retard who hasn't yet realised that Thatcherism is kept alive by the left. I have no idea why the British left are crawling with little Maggies.
@@damianbylightning6823 Of course the Labour Party is Thatcherite. Everyone knows Blair, Starmer etc. are Thatcherites. What's your point?
@@ericpreston8877 My point is that Labour is deeply influenced by Thatcherism - not just Blair and Starmer. It's there in moral cretins like Corbyn too. Welsh Labour's empire is run along Thatcher lines - Labour members and voters appear too stupid to work this out. Imagining Thatcherism as 'an evil' of 'the other side' is a mumbo-jumbo attempt at exorcism. Welsh Labour is a prop of Labour's left ergo it is anti-Thatcherite etc. This is just childish and dangerous nonsense. I see no reason why this view is 'US-style libertarianism'.
Thatcherism owes a great debt to the British socialist tradition. This helps explain the extraordinary reaction the left had to her. It is a little bit like Nazism/fascism, in that sense. The pudding that is 'fascism' mostly existed in leftist tropes before the rise of classic Italian fascism. Nazi ideas such as racial genocide first emerged in modern politics in the 1st half of the 19th century - on 'the left'. I should add that the Holocaust was 1st imagined by a Marxist socialist, in 1912. The idea of using technology to eradicate the 'unworthy' in an efficient manner, has utilitarian, consequentialist, modernist, technocratic and socialist connections. Lefties have been all over this kinda stuff - like a priapic male feminist on a rape victim.
There's more - but that's enough for now.
@@damianbylightning6823 Lol, the old Nazism is actually socialism canard.
Eugenics began among Democrats in the American South. Some of these Democrats were economically populist - but just as many were Bourbon Conservatives. Indeed, the Klan quickly shifted gears in the early 20th century and became A Republican institution in the North (such as the Indiana Klan, which elected a conservative Republican governor of that State in Edward L. Jackson).
The Italian fascists and the Nazis privatized much of their economy (ref. "Against The Mainstream: Privatization In Nazi Germany").
You were saying?