Free market principles. The history of ideas. The life & work of Creative Heroes.

Category: United Kingdom/Britain (page 1 of 1)

Britain’s Trillion Pound Horror Story

MartinDurkin WAG TV Britain

Presented with the kind permission of Martin Durkin, Wag TV

Description by Producer:

Cuts? What cuts? Martin Durkin’s explosive feature-length documentary on the British economy attacks George Osborne for bottling it.

Osborne is just Gordon Brown with fingernails. People think he’s making savage cuts. He isn’t. Public spending, which doubled under Labour, will barely change in the next few years. Meanwhile, Britain’s debt (£4.8 trillion), and the interest on that debt, is getting bigger and bigger. And taxes, already crippling, are rising.

Who’s paying for it? You are.

As Durkin points out, in Britain today the public sector is bigger than the private sector. The British government spends more than all private individuals and companies put together. Yet any mention of cuts raises howls of protest. Our bloated, parasitic public sector is the biggest, smuggest, greediest special interest group in British history.

Paying for Britain’s super-sized state has landed us with mind-bending debts (if you sold all the houses and flats in the UK, you still couldn’t pay it off). And for what? They spent all that money, they said, to provide us with world-class healthcare and education, to build wonderful houses for us and end poverty. Oh yes, and to stimulate the economy. Ha.

This film explodes two giant myths – the Santa Claus state, and the Robin Hood state. There ain’t no Santa Claus – it’s our money they’re spending. And forget Robin Hood. There aren’t enough Andrew Lloyd Webbers to bleed. It’s ordinary folk, and the poor, who pay the lion share of taxes. And what do we get for our money? Our state monopoly health service is a national scandal, our schools barely deserve the name and you have to be a millionaire to afford a decent family home in many parts of Britain. Meanwhile the obscene profligacy of the British state has crippled the productive economy and landed our children and grandchildren with an unbelievably huge debt to repay. How much more of their money do we think it’s OK to spend? Britain today is a semi-Communist country, needlessly impoverished, unhealthy, ill-educated and poorly housed.

It’s time for a revolution and that means cutting the size of the state by two thirds (to start with) and introducing low taxes. Sack most public sector workers, get rid of the NHS, privatise all schools. Durkin pulls no punches. He believes Britain can turn itself into a 21st century Tiger economy in less than a year.

The film features interviews with four former chancellors of the exchequer, a surreal clutch of celebrities, and the biggest stack of fifty pound notes you ever did see.

 Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story by Martin Durkin


Presented with the kind permission of ITN (Independent Television News) Productions
Special thanks to Dan Faulks

An 8 part documentary originally produced for The Telegraph Media Group (The Daily Telegraph & The Sunday Telegraph newspapers) in 2008, narrated by Anna Massey.

  1. The Making Of Margaret (51 Mins)
  2. The Falklands (27 Mins)
  3. World Stage (35 Mins)
  4. The Age Of Dissent (27 Mins)
  5. Taking On The Unions (28 Mins)
  6. Public Image, Private Life (33 Mins)
  7. The Fall (31 Mins)
  8. The Legacy (29 Mins)


Debate: Margaret Thatcher Saved Britain

Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher

Presented with the kind permission of Intelligence Squared.
Special thanks to Ted Maxwell.

The panel debate the motion: Maggie Thatcher saved Britain. Chaired by Martyn Lewis.

Arguing FOR the motion are Charles Moore, Lord Bell and Sir John Nott.

Charles Moore states that, for Maggie Thatcher, politics were the art of the impossible, and that’s why she made such a difference. He notes her affirmation of the principle that aggression had to be defeated in the Falklands War and her individual impact on Anglo-Russian relations. Moore believes that Thatcher embodies, expresses and magnifies the positive attributes of Britishness.

Lord Bell argues that this debate is not about the legacy Thatcher left, but whether she actually saved Britain at the time. He believes that she restored Britons’ pride in their country in a period when it was in decline as a world power, and states that history will reflect that she saved Britain when it was at a crossroads, leaving us a freer and more successful nation.

John Nott defends the policies of Thatcher, claiming that Britain needed a radical leader at that period in its history. In his view, Great Britain was the sick man of Europe and action had to be taken. Despite the unbearable pain of deindustrialisation and unemployment, Nott suggests that Thatcher took necessary steps to restore Britain’s prosperity.

Arguing AGAINST the motion are Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, Billy Bragg, and Diane Abbott MP.

Peregrine Worsthorne admits that he was a great fan of Thatcher’s at the time, but, in reflecting on her legacy, he has no alternative but to oppose the motion. He believes that Thatcher destroyed the old labour and conservative parties as well as the great tradition of working class solidarity and the upper class idea of public service.

Billy Bragg asks what the ‘greatest Conservative prime minister’ actually conserved. He outlines how she damaged the unity of the UK, the power of the armed forces and the monarchy, and criticises her economic policies for causing widespread unemployment.

Diane Abbott recognises the sheer immensity of her task in the face of such ‘established’ opposition, and points out that she is exactly the sort of person that Thatcher was supposed to have saved Britain from. While Abbott concedes that Thatcher was a truly remarkable person, who ruled the Tory party entirely through fear, she argues that the Iron Lady only saved a very particular Britain. There are other British people who are not so quick to believe that she saved them.

First Vote: 347 For, 142 Against, 157 Don’t Know

Final Vote: 393 For, 209 Against, 48 Don’t Know

The motion is passed by 184 votes.