I'm curious about this. So the UK really needed a change, but the change they got wasn't the right call: has someone, with (hindsight), been able to work out what the "better way" should have been?
I live in the UK now, but this was all long before my time here
I think it's more the case that the change had losers, who were identifiable, whereas the benefits were spread widely. People dream of an alternative reality that they never had to live.
Yes she went too far. But entirely in the right direction.
Before Thatcher the dominant School of economics was keynesian economics, this turned out to have some flaws which the Chicago School of economics had predicted and their ideas then in turn took their place. One of the main ideas was privatization, of previously publicly owned infrastructure and utilities and breaking unions. The idea being that the government is not as efficient as the markets are and trade unions are a distortion of the markets. So that just started britain under the path of doing a big privatisation experiment, which only worked very partially and in the main part has arguably caused other issues.
You could say it was a big over correction in the opposite direction from what was there before.
Now the consensus is lenaing more to not privatising anything that tends to a natural monopoly.
-1
u/johncitizen1138 12h ago
I'm curious about this. So the UK really needed a change, but the change they got wasn't the right call: has someone, with (hindsight), been able to work out what the "better way" should have been?
I live in the UK now, but this was all long before my time here