However,Thatcher's calculated destruction of long standing industry and turning South Wales, the north the midlands of England into a wasteland was the act of a social criminal.
Why would anyone in their right mind shut industry that you did not need to, lay off 1000's of workers and not offer to replace the old industry with new ones?
Thatcher didn't.
What Thatcher did was end the Labour practice of borrowing huge amounts of money to prop up employment in state owned industries. That practice was good for Labour, because it allowed them to claim they were keeping unemployment down. It was good for workers in the short term, because it kept them in work. It was a disaster for the country in the long term because it destroyed vast areas of British industry which weren't allowed to modernise and compete internationally.
By 1979 British Leyland required twice as many man hours to build a car as Volkswagen or Ford Europe. British Steel required twice the man hours to produce a ton of steel as the German producers. BEcause it was forced to buy British coal to support the coal industry, the CEGB charged British people the highest electricity prices in western Europe.
British industry had suffered a lost 15 years since 1964. Where other countries modernised and improved, Britain stood still. The best selling car built by a British company in 1964 was the Mini. In 1979, with other countries producing much more modern cars, the Mini was still BL's best seller. There hadn't been the investment in modern designs that would enable BL to compete in the 80s.
When Thatcher gradually removed the support for those industries they were simply too far behind the opposition to survive without radical restructuring. In some cases that worked. British Steel, for example, shed a large part of the work force but modernised and kept production at a similar level. Brand led companises, like the car industry, were simply too far behind to compete.
As to replacing old failed industry with new ones, that's exactly what happened. UK car production was 1,500,000 in 1973, by 1979 it had declined to 1,050,000, but by 1990 it was up to 1,300,000 and by 1997 1,650,000. Sadly manufacturing actually declined under the last Labour government, even before the recession hit. Production was down to 1,500,000 in 2007, it fell below 1 million in 2009.
UK manufacturing output as a whole actually rose rapidly between 1979 and 1997. From an index level of 83 in 1979 to 92 in 1990, 96 in 1997, despite 2 world recessions in the same period. Under the last Labour government manufacturing production flatlined, it reached a peak of 101 in 2007, then fell in the recession to 87.
So the Tories saw a rise in output of 16% in 17 years despite 2 world recessions, and despite inheriting an extremely outdated manufacturing sector reliant on state aid to survive. Labour saw a decline in output of 6.25% in 13 years, with only 1 recession during that period (all figures inflation adjusted, of course).
In the end it was a bubble that burst as it was based on nothing.
On the contrary. In 1997 the British economy was doing extremely well. It was admired internationally. When Gordon Brown entered the Treasury in 1997 he was briefed by a civil servant on the state of the economy. The civil servant told him he had inherited "fantastically good" figures from his predecessor. When Labour left government in 2010 the chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, left behind a short note to his successor: "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left"
Do not confuse the economic success of the Tory years (including manufacturing) with the abject failure of the last government, who's greatest "achievement" was to borrow vast amounts of money to spend on public services we could not even afford at the height of the boom.
Labour in the 60s and 70s borrowed money to prop up employment in state owned industries. Labour in the noughties borrowed money to prop up employment in public services. Both caused vast damage to the country, both left behind a debt legacy, damaged industry and a country that has to make massive cuts simply to get back to stability.
But the opposite - at extreme - was the UK before Mrs. Thatcher. The Tools Down ...socialist ... "I'm entitled to my entitlements" schtick that turns a right minded, motivated, hard working human being into a 'hive' creature with a 'contract'.
Sadly the last bout of Labour government has brought that back. One of the big stories of the last couple of weeks in Britain has been about unemployed people being "forced" to do short work experience placements with companies. If they don't stick it out for the few weeks of the placement they risked losing benefits. This, according to some of the people involved and the left who organised a massive campaign, is completely wrong. They are outraged that people may be forced to work in return for benefits they are "entitled" to.
There has been another huge campaign against a new government policy of limiting housing benefit payments to a maximum of £400 per week (about $700). There are currently people living in houses costing more than £1 million, with the state paying their rent. The left have argued bitterly that these people will have to move, and their children may even be forced to move school. They believe they are
entitled to have thousands of pounds a week in state benefits to enable them to live in houses very few taxpayers could afford to live in themselves.