Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Coming edits....

Over the coming days I am going to be adding greatly to the article, most importantly, adding page references from a biography I have of Thatcher. I hope one day to get all the PMs of the 20th Century to GA and beyond, I'm currently wrapping up Winston Churchill and figure the Iron Lady is next in line. LordHarris 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher shouldn't the wikipedia article cover this?

'In 1992 Margaret Thatcher signed on as an international consultant to the Philip Morris tobacco company at a pay rate of US $500,000 annually, with half to be paid directly to Mrs. Thatcher and half to be paid to the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

According to the 19 July 1992 U.S. Sunday Times article, Ms. Thatcher's "advice will be sought on controversial issues including the penetration of tobacco markets in Eastern Europe and the Third World. She will also be asked to help resist attempts to ban tobacco advertising in the European Community and to fight cigarette taxes and state-run tobacco monopolies." Thatcher was a non-smoker who spoke out against tobacco several times while Prime Minister.

The Independent (of London) reported that Philip Morris paid for a 70th birthday bash for Ms. Thatcher on 23 October 1995 in Washington, D.C. 800 guests attended and the estimated cost of the party was $1 million.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by DOMINIC707 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I've removed this section because it gives undue weight to a subject of trivial importance to a biographical article on Thatcher. Thatcher was not the driving force behind Section 28 and I have never seen her comment on it. Neither do I think one sentence from a conference speech is notable enough for a section. None of the biographies on her that I've read ever mention either Section 28 or that line.--Johnbull (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I created the section only because there was a paragraph already on it and I really had no reason to remove it. I support your removal of it, though. Happyme22 (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a pity. Whatever anyone thinks of the merits of that policy, it remains one of the things for which she is best known, and even if she was not the originator of the policy she was strongly associated with it. I have reinstated the section. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So JohnBull says she was not strongly associated with it, yet BHG says she was. Anyone have any proof of either claim? Happyme22 (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick google test: "Section 28" thatcher gives 14,500 hits. See also this article on the BBC website:

This coincided with the Tory Party Conference in 1987, and the story goes that the then prime minister, Mrs Thatcher, was walking past Jill Knight who said "we must do something about loony-left councils promoting homosexuality in schools".

Almost without thinking, Mrs Thatcher said: "Yes. Why don't you work it into the local government bill?".

Lots more refs like that on google. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality certainly isn't one of the things Thatcher is known for. If you ask people what comes to mind when you mention "Margaret Thatcher" you'll most probably hear "unemployment, trade unions, the Falklands, privatisation". The fact is that Thatcher was not involved in formulating Section 28, it was Conservative backbenchers (most notably Jill Knight) who were behind it. As I said, none of her biographers have deemed it worthy to mention, I wonder why Wikipedia does? It's POV to give undue weight to such a minor issue. In no way does it deserve its own section. I hardly think a founder of Stonewall is a reliable source for an anecdote from the Tory party conference. The fact that some people associate it with Thatcher does not count: Wikipedia deals with facts not hearsay. Googling Thatcher with "unemployment", "trade unions" or "privatisation" gives vastly more hits.--Johnbull (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather think its an important aspect of policy in her time in power though. Its excluding it that would be POV. - Galloglass 22:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Johnbull, Sure, there are some things for which she was even better known, but this is one of the things with which Thatcher is strongly associated. The BBC even put her name and a picture of her at the top of an article about it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/gay/2004/05/section_28_info.shtml --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In all due respect I don't think you have shown it's one of the things Thatcher is strongly known for. An anecdote from an unlikely source and a photograph on a BBC website (which just says she was PM at the time) compared to all her biographers who don't mention it. To give it its own section is to blow it out of all proportion to its importance and relevance to Margaret Thatcher. I can only reiterate what I have wrote above: there is no hard evidence to show that Thatcher was involved in formulating Section 28 or actively worked to get it passed through Parliament. Indeed searching the database of all her public speeches and written letters shows it is not mentioned even once.--Johnbull (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you really trying to suggest that one of her government's most controversial policies at the time was somehow nothing to do with her? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for evidence, hard fact, which you have failed to provide. Without such sourced evidence it should not be added to the article.--Johnbull (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in her biography and I will be adding the references soon. Ive also seen a documentary about section 28 and the role of the Conservative government. While it is perhaps something that people might not wish to associate with her time in office, it was an important aspect and it should be included. LordHarris 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Economy - tax burden

Could somebody add info about change of tax burden (tax as a percentage of gdp) during Thatcher years? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN removal

Rather than quick-failing the article, I just removed it from list at GAN since it was nominated today. The article has more than ten "citation needed" tags that need to be addressed before the article is renominated. There are also some minor formatting issues and the last image's fair use rationale should be expanded. For assistance in getting the article passed at its next nomination, please take a look at WP:Guide for nominating good articles. It has tips and shows how to correct common mistakes within articles. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I hope that the issues are addressed and the article is renominated, as Margaret Thatcher has a very interesting article. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Prince Philip of Greece

I reverted some edits by Prince Philip of Greece which I thought weren't appropriate. Thought I should make a note of it here. See this and this for further details. Thanks Paul20070 (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been mainstream coverage of the planned Class War celebration, see here and here and here. It probably could be included with details about the play and the beer, to show how despised Thatcher is by some people in the UK instead of the current hagiography. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To One Night in Hackney, many thanks for your research skills and supporting evidence.Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the planned Class War demonstrations have achieved, as noted above, mainstream media coverage, I think it disingenuous to suggest (as Galloglass attempted, that my original edit was based on "unsourced rumours". As the question of "taste"... Taste is personal, Wikipedia is neutral. If you find my edits "distasteful", please say so, rather than removing my contributions. Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We have such things added to the pages of controversial people several times a day Prince Philip of Greece. Unless there is supporting citations they will be removed 99 times out of 100. Please remember this is, after all, an encyclopedia and anything that is in the least controversial about a living person needs supporting evidence. I would suggest reading WP:BIO which gives a good idea of the level of support needed when adding such information. - Galloglass 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a relatively inexperienced WP contributor, so I must thank you for your educating me on so many points. But the contribution I made to the topic is not, ipso facto, controversial - it is a mere statement of something that is planned to happen, and it is evidenced by the references provided by One Night in Hackney, so it is not unsupported. The suggested reading matter WP:BIO is fascinating, but is silent on the issue of "the level of support needed" for any contribution (unless you can kindly show me which section you mean me to learn from). As stated above, I suspect your revertion have been based on some notion of 'taste', not validity, evidence or consensue. Please let me revert to my earlier contribution (with One Night in Hackney's references appended); and please discuss with me again if you feel I have not fairly addressed your concerns.Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Prince Philip for my part I have no view on the subject matter. If you can reference it then I am quite happy to have in re-included. - Galloglass 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

New version added, under a new sub-head "Mixed Opinions", structured around the play Maggie's End, with plenty of external references. Also appended in the section above, info from BBC Press Release concerning The Long Walk to Freedom.Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The section reads well now and has some good references. Well done. Paul20070 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's problems with it. Firstly it's in the wrong place, the whole legacy section should be more neutral not just a small section detailing those particular incidents. I think the information belongs in the health concerns section, as it's her advancing years and failing health that have prompted the stuff. Secondly the information about the play is all wrong, there's nothing in it about the Class War street parties those are a totally separate thing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to be encouraging I guess, but looking at it again in the context of the entire section, I think you could be right. So I've had a go at cleaning it up a bit, and removed references to Class War. Hopefully it reads a little better now. I can see the case for moving this info to the health concerns section, but I'm not sure whether it would fit there. Any thoughts? Paul20070 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Art imitating life imitating art? Still, any publicity is good publicity! [1]Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I probably owe you an apology. The subject of Margaret Thatcher stirs great emotions in many people (whether they like or dislike her) and coming a matter of hours after yesterday's reports on her health, I was concerned about the motives of your edit - particularly as you chose FaceBook as a source. You seem to have been making a constructive contribution to the article though, so I apologise for jumping the gun as it were. The above references from One Night In Hackney are from reliable sources, so perhaps it is all right to mention this. Maybe something along the lines of the group plans a street party in the event of her death, and leave it at that. Paul20070 (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for your response.Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly it seems that gloating over her upcoming death is not only acceptable, but very fashionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.93.136 (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Gloating"? "Fashionable"? Thatcher (like Blair) was never voted out at a general election. Many people will choose to mark the passing of her political reign/legacy with a public gathering. Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Billy Elliott, Dissappearing Britain, two plays. Hopefully when she does pass away we'll have more positive reactions from the majority of Britons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.93.136 (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope so too! You're all welcome at the party after all.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced that comparing Blair to Thatcher is that appropriate, they were such different Prime Ministers, Thatcher evoked far stronger feelings of loyalty and hatred than Blair ever did and I am sure her passing (which hopefully will be many years of) will be more reminiscent of Churchill's funeral than of Wilson's. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not seriously advocating some kinda "state" funeral? Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that will (rightly so) be the case. If it isn't an official State funeral it will be the equivalent. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Elvis Costello on this one.

Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven

Should here name not be Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, so with of Kesteven? This according [2] Demophon (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

no. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the full title is in the introduction of two of her predecessors. See Harold Wilson, which introduces him as James Harold Wilson, Baron Wilson of Rievaulx and James Callaghan, which introduces him as Leonard James Callaghan, Baron Callaghan of Cardiff. Paul20070 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's all to do with whether it's part of the title or just the territorial designation. With Thatcher it's just the latter. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add "a devote Fascist" since she had links with Mr Augusto Pinochet the dictator in Chile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.47.218 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would make her a Fascist.--Johnbull (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm.. The London Gazette says this:

CROWN OFFICE
Lord Chancellor's Department,
House of Lords, London SW1A OPW
26th June 1992
The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal
of the Realm, dated the 26th June 1992, to confer the dignity of a
Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon the Right Honourable
Margaret Hilda Thatcher, O.M., by the name, style and title of
BARONESS THATCHER, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire.
(19 SI) J.LWaine

So..., it's a little confusing for me, since BARONESS THATCHER is put in capital letters suggesting that her title is only that. However, they also added "of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire"??? Is there some distinction between a short "in practice" title and a lesser used longer full title? What if there are more Thatchers who are baron (but not family of Margaret Thatcher). Wouldn't confuse this? Demophon (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Compare with David Sheppard who was Baron Sheppard of Liverpool, of West Kirby in the County of Merseyside, the last bit just describes where the person is from, it doesn't form a part of the title. Any further creations of Life Peerages for someone else called Thatcher probably would take a territorial designation to avoid confusion (though I might be wrong on that). The capitalisation in the Gazette doesn't seem to matter, it's still only Baron Shepperd that was capitalised in his case, see http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewGazetteDocument.aspx?src=search&atdocid=37480&pg=1&GeoType=London&st=adv&sb=date&exact=David%20Stuart%20Sheppard David Underdown (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing syntax

Can someone fix this sentence? It starts ambiguously, as on my first reading it seemed to say It took Thatcher more than three years after... (maybe took power would be better than took over). The second half makes no sense - realising that as ... - realising what? It also isn't clear who has had this realisation, Callaghan or Thatcher.

Thatcher took over three years after the James Callaghan Government had concluded that the Keynesian approach to demand-side management failed to do everything, realising that as the economy is not self-righting and that new fiscal judgements had to be made to concentrate on inflation, a view accepted by the Thatcher Government.

FennySnake (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Degree from Oxford

I don't think she did get a second-class BSc. I think what she got was a second in her Final Honour School, which qualified her to take the BA degree (remember that all first degrees at Oxford were BA in those days), and then she did the BSc, which was a postgraduate degree equivalent to the new MSc degree.--195.194.143.91 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I suspect that is the case. I will change the article to reflect this as it certainly seems more likely but ask for citations.Domminico (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly it seems the article had her year of matriculation wrong! I thought it was strange that she got her Bsc after only 3 years. According to her foundation she matriculated in 43 not 44. Pretty sloppy!Domminico (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the section on her education to better reflect what I think is the truth from my knowledge of the Oxford degree system. Please correct if I'm wrong.Domminico (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why so many photos with Reagan?

I know it's said that Thatcher and Reagan were political soul mates [3] but couldn't we put some photos of Margaret Thatcher and other statesmen besides Reagan. There are currently 12 photos in this article and 5 of them are Reagan connected. Lathrop1885 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that to some extent it's because the photos were taken by US federal employees and hence released into the public domain, so providing a useful source of free images. UK "official"photos are instead Crown Copyright so can't be so freely reused. David Underdown (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor NPOV in Early Life and Education

Really minor things, from Early Life and Education section:

"Her school reports show hard work and commitment, but not brilliance. Outside the classroom she played hockey and also enjoyed swimming and walking.[8] Finishing school during the Second World War, she subsequently applied for a scholarship to attend Somerville College, Oxford and was only successful when the winning candidate dropped out"

These are (if only somewhat) relevant points, but are stated in a negative way, in my opinion. I'm not quite sure how to fix it; if anyone can think of anything, go right ahead. If it turns out that this is actually totally neutral and I'm actually pro-Thatcher, then my bad. M.Nelson (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Mrs Thatcher dead?

Is Mrs Thatcher dead?

see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7538482.stm

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.89.224 (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. As I recall, the Daily Mail (inevitably) claimed that Lady Thatcher has been arranged to have a state funeral, when she does eventually pass away. That article is referring to the fact that that rumour has not been confirmed or officially ruled out as yet. Cheers. VWOzone (Talk) 22:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, as specifically stated in the linked article, "There is no indication that Lady Thatcher's health is causing concern." Road Wizard (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In her recently published book, "A Swim-On Part in the Goldfish Bowl", Carole Thatcher writes that her mother is suffering from dementia, having to be reminded that her husband is dead and confusing the Falklands with Bosnia etc.--Streona (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Iraq, Afghanistan and Cambodia

The Thatcher period in office almost exactly coincides with Britain'sunqualified support for Saddam Hussein and for the Afghan "Freedom Fighters" Al-Qaeda as anti- Communists and for the Khymer Rouge also as anti-communists. Perhaps this should be included in the article as we are having to live with the consequences today.--Streona (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Government spending

The article is wrong on Margaret Thatcher's record on government spending.

The article states that Prime Minister Margarat Thatcher introduced "buget cuts" and reduced spending on "health care" and so on. This simply is not true. Government spending greatly increased (not decreased) after 1979. Even as a percentage of the economy (let alone in cash or real, inflation adjusted, terms). Although after 1983 the share of the economy taken up by government spending did go into decline - but government spending in either cash or real (inflation adjusted) terms, never did go into decline under Margaret Thatcher.

There seems to be the normal wikipedia fault of trusting to citations (rather than real fact checking) - puting in a source for "budget cuts" does not alter the fact that government spending went up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.103.83 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any citations to back up your assertions? Thanks in advance, Happyme22 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Happyme22 - this is exactly what is wrong with the wikipedia approach. Looking for "citations" rather than facts. The facts are easy to find - just look up the government spending numbers for the historical period (such things are on line now - for people who do not wish to use reference libraries).

But instead one (according to wikipedia) should point at some newspaper article (or whatever).

It really is odd - I complain about the reliance on citations (rather than checking the actual facts) and people say "do you have any citations for that". Although it may be humour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.122.5 (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a table of % change in selected expenditures sourced from Lawson (1992). Lachrie (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

Just a suggestion: *A criticisms subsection to clean up the arguments --Thelostlibertine (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Negative. It has been determined that criticism sections are overty in violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV (see WP:CRITICISM). Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why then is there a Criticism of Tony Blair article?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a good question, because the Criticism of George W. Bush article was recently found to be in violation of NPOV and was merged with Public perception of George W. Bush. Happyme22 (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be some consistency on this. I think all controversial figures should have a criticism section. That said there is no criticism section on the page on Adolf Hitler!  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And that has relevance how? WP:OTHERSTUFF Soxwon (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a criticism section is only useful if there's pervasive bias in the main body of the article. In this case, there is, however I agree with the policy, it'd be far better to take steps towards dealing with the one-sidedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading this article--especially after the spectacular collapse of Wall Street and all other major stock markets worldwide this past fall--not to mention the numerous and sundry articles in all major newspapers of record pronouncing privatization and laissez faire capitalism is evidently a corrupt and flawed economic system, one would think there would be some mention of this in Thatcher's Wiki entry. But of course there is not, given the fact that this entry, like so many others of controversial political persons, is baby-sat by a group of avid Thatcher fans and supporters. To not have a section that honestly and openly discusses how hers and Reagan's policies of deregulation and "get the government off the people's backs" have lead the ongoing banking collapse of 2008-2009 is going beyond the pale. This is the basic failing of Wikipedia: objectivity and balance is not to be found; only a whitewashed, flowery version of cherry-picked facts are offered to the reader. And that's what this pathetic article about Thatcher is here. Quick!--delete this comment before too many people read it!!! :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.67.236 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you heard of the 'Community Re-investment Act', my knowledge is sketchy but it was a thing much trumpeted by Bill Clinton (but not introduced by him) that pretty much forced banks to lend money to people with bad credit so that they could buy their own home. It was seen as a 'nice' liberal type thing to do at the time. Many people believe that this was what got the unsustainable property boom going not laissez faire policy.Willski72 (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To Willski72: you're a hopeless basketcase. There is no point in attempting intelligent discussion with you. Sure thing, dude: Carter and Clinton caused the Wall Street/global collapse! Love the "many people believe" line, btw. Nothing like anonymous "many people" references to peddle your lies and nonsense. Now go back to your AM talk radio with Rush Limbaugh. What is so unfortunate about American politics these days is that everything is liberal vs. conservative, along with a militant refusal to face the facts. All arguments by conservatives work backwards: from the conclusion they want (de-regulate and privatize EVERYTHING and eliminate all laws, regulations and government oversight) and start cherry picking convenient anecdotes to make up your flimsy case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.67.236 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know who Rush Limbaugh is nor do i know what AM talk radio is, i was merely pointing out that there are two sides to the story, you can blame whoever you want. Personally i couldnt care less about whats happening to American politics because im not American, although if i am to believe MY government the crisis is all America's fault.....Willski72 (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I suggest you dont jump to conclusions and that you think before you type. The only reason i've been so restrained with my reply is because i understand that you have VERY STRONG OPINIONS. If you read the whole talkpage you will see that i want more criticism, but you're attack shows that you're opinions do not fit in well with an encyclopedia.Willski72 (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Willski72-the main criticism I have of your comment relating to my initial post is that you are almost entirely off topic, e.g. no criticism section for Thatcher's entry. Your "two sides to every story" truism doesn't hold any water regarding the USA finanacial meltdown: ask any informed mainstream if they think the 'Community reinvestment act' was the cause of the collapse and they'd laugh in your face: only red state wingnut hillbillies who think Obama's a socialist communist anti-christ coming to kill us all believe what you are mentioning. It's probably the case you've read corporate or conservative media regarding the 'Community Reinvestment Act'. But overall, you simply don't understand global events and hence your odd rebuttal immediately above. It's best to move on and forget this waste of time. Nonetheless my primary criticism of this Thatcher website is no balance in the historical analysis. This is all I really care to talk about on this page. Reagan and Thatcher are largely to blame for the financial collapse we are painfully enduring. Reagan helped foment the inevitable repeal of Bretton Woods Securities legislation which FDR put in place after the last Great Depression of 1928-1930s infamy. I don't think you fit in well on Wikipedia either: your comments are largely irrelevant and off-topic red herrings, and you know it. Finally, there's nothing "very strong" about my opinions, that's rubbish. The observations I make here would be made by millions of others regarding Thatcher's dubious political impact on Britain and beyond. Like Ronald Reagan, she is a highly controversial politician who for Brits you either love or you hate, depending on which camp you find yourself in politically: conservative or liberal. What I'm pointing out here is plainly obvious to anybody who would look at this Wiki entry: as it stands its a whitewash of Thatcher and is biased and incomplete since the Wall Street collapse of this last fall has proven neo-liberal capitalism a failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.66.251 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you werent in Britain during some years of the 70s then. 24% inflation etc is hardly any better than now. I oppose the introduction of words into the article such as "laissez faire capitalism is evidently a corrupt and flawed economic system". Oh yeh, funny how in Britain we have had 16 solid years of economic growth and now 1 year of recession and people wave their arms around in despair. You cant blame Thatcher for some moronic bankers who thought it would be fun to lend 110% mortgages to people already in debt, (I can promise you they werent doing it in the 80s). Most of her emphasis was on major industries not banking. She personally believed in saving money, i couldnt answer for Reagan but then this is an article about Thatcher so i dont care. I will repeat that there should be more criticism on some points were it is clearly one-sided however you're comments are clearly one-sided the other way and so a middle way (or a third way if you like) should be taken.Willski72 (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree then. This is a waste of time, neither side listens to the other, which is typical of political forums in general. You will blindly love Thatcher no matter what anybody types here. A quick final observation: you say you "don't care about Reagan as this is a Thatcher site blah blah blah". Then you don't know your history regarding Thatcher! She worshipped Reagan, and she implemented Reaganomics in Britain, e.g. her government copied the policies Reagan was implementing in the USA (with disastrous short and long term consequences). Reagan and Thatcher were very close, and any intelligent or informed person on this topic would know this, and further they would never say Reagan is irrelevant on this page without coming across as myopic and ignorant of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.66.251 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes i know they were friends theres a picture of her at his funeral in the article!!! Or there used to be anyway... She was also friendly with Gorbachev and helped with the dismantling of Communism.... We shall agree to disagree then, you have your opinions i have mine (they do not include a "blindly love" of Thatcher but nor do they include a hatred of everything she did). Im not sure if you quite understand the nationalisation side though my friend, America and Britain in the 70s were two very different countries when it came to state intervention. In the 80s they came much closer but in many ways Reagan was the more extreme as Thatcher had more to work at as all major industries were nationalised and arguably completely uncompetetive, surviving off government subsidies paid for by tax with a top rate of 83% etc.)Willski72 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IP 74 and Willski: this is not the place to be arguing about trivial points that do not pertain to the article. Please stop or seek dispute resolution. Happyme22 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Happyme22. Just trying to partially defend the article, im surprised its taken someone else so long to say something! The fact that its just been two of us makes this one quite a rarity!Willski72 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)