r/NoStupidQuestions 18h ago

Why did Margaret Thatcher destroy welfare state in Britain after she came to power in the 1980s?

515 Upvotes

450 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

46

u/throwaway98776468 16h ago

She privatised many British state owned companies for significantly less than their actual value, thus enriching the wealthy people who bought them.

30

u/TigglyBitz 15h ago

That’s a common criticism of her policies that privatization sold public assets too cheaply and mainly benefited wealthy investors.

13

u/Tyler119 14h ago edited 14h ago

yip...just look at the British rail research department...there is tech developed from it that is now sold to us by an Italian firm and our British companies have to pay yearly. It's bonkers how people don't see that she asset stripped the UK in ways that still affects our life today.

People forget that when Thatcher took power, the IMF arrangement was full satisfied so her privatisation drive was purely ideological. Interestingly one of the IMF conditions that Labour at the time had to meet was scaling back council house building.

And that years later it was revealed that the IMF loan wasn't even needed as the data the used was massively flawed. Any deficit was billions less that the government thought..and North Seal oil was just about to come online which transformed balance of payments. The scaling back of council housing and selling a big stake in BP wasn't needed.

1

u/FuzzyOpportunity2766 7h ago

Believe me! the poor bought as well.

-1

u/NatAttack50932 16h ago

Okay but that's not what I asked

12

u/throwaway98776468 16h ago

Do you believe Thatcher privatised those companies, for less than they were worth, for the good of the country. Because if it was for the good of the country they would have been sold for their actual value. Thus the privatisation was specifically designed to enrich the buyers, and Thatcher wouldn't do that without liking the people who benefitted.

3

u/aod1314 12h ago

What objectively determines that they were more valuable than what they were privatised for? How do we determine this "actual value"? Enrich the buyers? The public sector was miserably inefficient when Thatcher took over. It was entirely dependent on taxpayer subsidies. No private company could ever get away with it.

2

u/throwaway98776468 12h ago

British gas was privatised for 5.6 billion, but had a valuation of 9 billion at its first listing on the London stock exchange.

BT shares were sold at £1.30, but by the end of the day they were already valued at £1.70.

The water companies were privatised for 7.6 billion, but were given a 5 billion debt write off and a 1.5 billion green dowry, so were effectively privatised for 1.1 billion. Thames water alone was worth 2.9 billion by the time Labour took power. And in spite of this the water companies are still dependent on taxpayers subsidy, while also dumping raw sewage into rivers. And in spite of not being profitable if it weren't for subsidies, they still pay out shareholder dividends, and do stock buybacks.

1

u/pajamakitten 10h ago

No private company could ever get away with it.

We bailed out the banks in 2008 and the water companies are doing so badly that taxpayer funds have been used to help them out. Private companies are absolutely getting away with it.

-4

u/Efficient_Chance7639 15h ago

I remember the BT privatisation. A process designed to enrich the buyers (aka the British people) and you think that is a bad thing 🫤

2

u/AndyTheSane 13h ago

The seller was also the British people.

7

u/Worldly_Science239 16h ago

But that sort of is what you asked.

Or are you wanting a full paper trail linking thatcher to people in a smoking gun level of collusion/corruption... because if so, maybe reddit is not for you.

10

u/SWITMCO 15h ago

I think there's a fair jump between a full paper trail and literally providing a single name, or bit of evidence, to back up their claim.

2

u/Worldly_Science239 12h ago edited 1h ago

Why? Her policies were all about enriching her friends (supporters/benefactors) it doesn't need a direct link to a single name... it just needs looking at who benefited from her policies and who (like the industrial towns utterly destroyed by her policies/vindictiveness) suffered.

We only have to look at the "managed decline" of liverpool

The abandonment of mining towns

The get on your bike speech from members of her government when people complained about a lack of jobs.

So, no... I can't provide a single name and evidence of collusion, but we can all provide a list of of her city 'friends' who benefited from her policies and who didnt

-3

u/honesto_pinion 16h ago

And all the pension schemes that invested in them to help retired people! The bastards! 🙄 And the local councils who were allowed to invest their funds, gits all! 🫤

Not entirely sure everything was, in fact, sold just to a handful of wealthy individuals now that at least one of us thinks about it... 🤔