Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

neutral vocabulary

There are some questions of neutral vocabulary to be dealt with. Thatcher "vowed this" and Thatcher "concluded that" is obviously not neutral. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship No a difference of opinion

Suddenly the rigour demanded for edits, is very high - it was very low when it was a question of Scargill getting stuck into. Paul Foot was a highly respected journalist, for Private Eye as well as for the Daily Mirror - did he have to play a significant role in Thatchers life/ to get a hearing. He was part of the political landscape. If he represented a minority view does it follow it should be denied articulation. As Nietzsche said ' If you want millions of followers, add zeros'. Can't the article say 'The crowd thought and felt this - but a few critics pointed out this, and a churchman thought that' etc. Bastin isn't much of a 'libertarian' in my opinion since he seems anxious to squash any criticism of his heroine. As a libertarian Bastin , please don't censor the article. Sayerslle (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, do two wrongs make a right? Pardon the pun. You're constructing an edit entirely based upon OPINION, an opinion of one writer Paul Foot. Its also unbalancing the article. We represent opinions according to their representation in the mainstream, your edit totally unbalances as it over represents one stream of opinion. And yelling censorship just because someone disagrees with you is demonstrating an utter lack of good faith. I suggest you calm down and use the talk page properly to achieve a balanced edit by collaborating with other editors instead of confronting them. Justin talk 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well of course I get told this a lot by highly confrontational people - you even censored my title for the section. Is Robert Runcie mainstream enough for you. I've met you before and I know what your 'collaboration' is worth. You think Thatcher wanted to sell the Falklanders out or something. If you and Bastin are guarding articles , God help them . And don't say 'calm down' it doesn't work - it s just bloody annoying . Sayerslle (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And such comments as the above not only don't work, but are possibly even violations of policy. Please do not comment on others but on the article itself. Personally, as someone whose involvement with this subject is basically minimal - as a US citizen, my memory of her is at best hazy - I have to think that the accusatory and almost belligerent nature of the above comment is certainly counterproductive. I can and do think that an article on Criticism of Margaret Thatcher may well be called for, and such content would certainly be reasonably placed there. However, I would very, very much hesitate to make substantial changes to a GA class article that have not been previously indicated as needed. It might well be reasonable to file a request for comment on how much information on the various views of Thatcher should be included in the biography, but in general, as someone who has done some prior work with biographies in general, I would have to say that most such material is better placed in other articles, like maybe a criticism article or the Thatcherism article, than in the biography itself. And I also have to think that the "censortship" accusation was very much uncalled for, and shows not only a failure to AGF but is generally inappropriate. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, my personal opinion of Thatcher wouldn't be a million miles away from Paul Foot. Whatever, the personal attack is out of order and you know it. You've already breached 3RR despite a warning and the confrontational and belligerent attitude in your response is utterly counter to the wikipedia way of doing things. And no I didn't censor "your" title see WP:OWN. Justin talk 08:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I flagged up the edit, I'll add my opinion again. As stated in my edit summary, the policy on neutrality of articles, as specified more precisely by Justin under WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID, states that neutrality is NOT giving equal weight to your opinion if the balance of reliable sources does not reflect it. Look at tertiary sources (meta-analyses), like other eneyclopaedia, and you'll see that in their sections on Thatcher's involvement in the Falklands, they DON'T dedicate half their time to Paul Foot's opinion. As surprising as that may or may not be.

Furthermore, I do not appreciate yet more non-AGF by attacking my edits based on being a supposedly 'far-right crank'. If you can't keep discussion on policy, rather than personal attacks, please don't discuss. Bastin 11:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

policy Bastin, what about the policy on 'keep polite'. "You're a pathetic excuse for an editor, you also can't read (leftists generally don't understand what they read, or they wouldn't believe in murder, slavery and theft, I suggest you read the rules and follow them (what about wp: CIVIL). I'm sure a lot of people find you pathetic. Pinochets murders were not right wing by definition, but made him more left-wing . You can't write properly..stop trolling me." (because I went to discuss something - I thought that was the point of talk pages). And on your talk page Bastin you call Thatcher' the greatest woman ever', but I'm not to dare to wonder if that could affect your approach to the Thatcher page and your edits. Is the Runcie clash OPINION. Is it UNDUE?. It was widely reported. Didn't you write on the Falklands talk page Justin that the Conservatives were too warm to the junta ' that every govt. was too ready to sell out the Falklanders' , something like that. Why did Parkinson and Walker go and speak so warmly to the Argentine govt. before the war. Why did Ridley and Whitelaw cancel the scheme to aid refugees from Argentina , was the rhetoric against the junta principled or opportunistic - these are not Opinion, but matters of fact.Sayerslle (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't need to abide by WP:CIVIL when dealing with trolls on my own talk page. You did, of course, NOT try to address the issues on my talk page, but simply attacked me. Yes, I'm a libertarian Thatcherite, but so what? Your page says you're a leftist - but your edits aren't being reverted because of that, but because they aren't sourced and this is a biography of a living person.

The Runcie thing may very well be overplayed, given that you're allocating as much space to a memorial service for the war as to the war itself! You are also basing an entire paragraph on a single source, which is not best practice, and one cause of undue emphasis being placed on isolated incidents. But there is probably enough material to cover Thatcher's relationship with Runcie at some point in the article, given that it was strained throughout their shared tenures.

The last comment on your part suggests that maybe you're sticking to WP:TRUTH, rather than WP:Verifiability. Only one of them is Wikipedia policy. Bastin 15:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It says on WP:CIVIL 'It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages.'Sayerslle (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know what policy is. I was referring to you not being civil to me in the first place. I was perfectly within my right to delete your comment for being solely dedicated to making a personal attack on me. For some reason, after having responded in less critical terms than you used against me, you complained that my retort was slightly barbed in return. Please do not insinuate that I have insulted you without provocation or that I have dragged it anywhere else on Wikipedia. You, however, called be a 'far-right crank' in a previous edit summary, and have continued with such statements. I don't appreciate, and I also don't appreciate you then parading WP:CIVIL around as if it's the be-all and end-all. Please concentrate on abiding by policy and being constructive, rather than entrapping others. This talk page is dedicated to discussing edits of this page, so let's keep it that way, okay? Bastin 15:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you know the policy you know it isn't WP:CIVIL - unless you fell affronted in which case be as abusive as you like. Presumably it means , be civil, even if provoked. Your 'retort' wasn't 'slightly barbed' it was very offensive, and meant to be so - its disingenuous to pretend otherwise. I'm not 'parading' the 'civil' policy, I only mentioned it because you are so often chucking policy at me . 'I'm a libertarian Thatcherite, so what?' Well, if the article were on something else I might agree, but the subject is Thatcher. 'I'm basing an entire paragraph on a single source which is bad practice' - spurious because the incident was reported all over the place. I don't appreciate being accused of 'entrapping' you into abuse and insult - youre keen on accepting personal responsibility for actions arent you, thats a part of your 'philosophy' isn't it , so why don't you practice what you preach and not blame others.Sayerslle (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No one here is unbiased, everyone is biased. Everyone has their opinions, as everyone has freely admitted. The problem is trying to create a relatively neutral article out of the conflicting biases (on both sides of the political spectrum). Bias is a natural part of humanity and always will be so Wikipedia just has to work around it as best as possible. Replacing an article effectively saying "Thatcher was great" with one effectively saying "Thatcher was rubbish" is just as bad. With someone like Thatcher a truly neutral article will never exist. The divide is just too great. All we will ever get is a rough design of mutual antipathy that somehow does not boil up into a war of words. That or we scrap the idea and just make two completely seperate articles with a "for" Thatcher and an "against". If they were linked on a re-direct page readers could then read both and make their own minds up. Though i expect the conflict would continue....Willski72 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I recognise that, as a Libertarian, I am obviously going to have a strong anti-Thatcherite bias, but this article seems far less neutral than I expect: particularly the 'Legacy' section, issues that are massively controversial are basically presented one way (in most cases as 'good', though in one as 'bad') without going into the details, before briefly mentioning that others disagre with this view. I basically wouldn't expect any form of judgements on her tenure in the wikipedia: I want the facts about what she did, what effects these had (if there is any dispute give both sides an even statement that one side says this action had this effect, but others deny the link because ___). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedisillusionedyouth (talk • contribs) 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your request seems fair enough and many have tried to create something similar but the problem is that 11 years of constant controversy means it could not all be fitted into a book, nevermind a Wikipedia page! Although i would agree that more emphasis should be made on her policies such as home-ownership etc etc (p.s. as a libertarian you would surely agree with some of her economic positions, and mainly disagree on social policy? Im just wondering, privatisation is libertarian isnt it?)Willski72 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly most articles are censored, politically, I find. A job of an encyclopedia is a to give an accurate, fact based portrayl of a subject, to the reader.

Sadly, if this involves bad things they did, you'll always have fans wanting it whitewashed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

State funeral

In the section on legacy, it mentions how Lady T, due to the wide admiration of her achievements may be given a state funeral. Yet it also claims it is "controversial" using the Guardian as a source (this newspaper is to the left of the BBC, which is quite an achievement in itself, so its not neutral)... also it quotes Harriet Harman saying how the government "has not decided". Do the Labour Party really think they will be in office again during the next decade? Seems slightly ambitious. It may be best to qualify that it was a Labour comment. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

On the state funeral wikipedia page it says Stalin got a state funeral, so if Stalin had one, I guess Thatcher could have one. Maybe she'll die before the next General Election , Yorkshirian. Sayerslle (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be attributed to the individual that said it. That is, Harman. I have done this.

The Guardian has already published a premature obituary online (and then retracted it), and it wasn't particularly complimentary. It didn't mention her being the first female PM, but Polly Toynbee DID say that she was 'sugar-coated arsenic'! Despite their known ideological slant, it is still considered neutral. However, peacock words should be avoided unless they are used across sources; only if (say) the Times and the Telegraph, or two or more other highly-respected newspapers also called it 'controversial', should we use it. The Mirror by itself is not a reliable source for peacock words! Bastin 12:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline

I'm reading Andy Becketts book 'When the Lights Went Out' and he points out that it has become orthodoxy to give the 1970s a kicking. 'The seventies were violent'. 'The seventies were grim'. 'The seventies were the hangover from the sixties'. ' The seventies were a dead end' 'Above all: we dont want to go back to the seventies'. And Thatcher arrived as a reaction against the 'failures' of the seventies, a counter revolution against its consensuses, a determination not to repeat its 'mistakes'. He notes that the seventies nevertheless has overtaken the sixties as the British nostalgia markets favourite. How had the dead end Britain of the 70s produced such a flowering of pop music, fashion and television? If Britain was so sickly where did people get the money to buy so many records and bold pairs of trousers? He remarks that unemployment in the seventies, taken at the time to be a great symptom of political failure, was actually low by modern standards, even during the long economic boom of the Blair years. 'In politics, things are never just moving in one direction, and especially not for an enitre decade. British politics in the seventies, was about moments of possibility as well as periods of entropy, about moments of calm as well as sudden calamity. Politics was rawer and more honest...more obviously connected to everyday life...Margaret Thatcher was not the only possible answer to the questions the decade posed...and the seventies as an era has been simplified more than most.' This dumb Thatcher article...hijacked by Thatcher ideologues, is part of that simplification. Sayerslle (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment is a pretty crappy measure of economic well-being, and is only really used as a proxy for economic output. As such, it is absurd to equate simply the measure of low unemployment, with economic well-being. You can mention it, sure, but the reason the general narrative in the literature is one that the 70s sucked is because all other indicators were considerably worse than any other post-war period (except this decade, as we learned yesterday).

The point on nostalgia is an absurd statement. Of course people have greater nostalgia for the 70s than they did before. The middle-aged people that do the whole nostalgia thing were teenagers in the 70s. Ask an 80-year-old, and he'll tell you the 40s were great - despite there being a bit of trouble for the first five years of the decade. To cite that as evidence that the 70s were great is absurd.

Anyway, this is still quite irrelevant, because my conjectures, your conjectures, and the conjectures of the minority view that it's great to be poor and vilified isn't supported by a wider canvasing of the literature. Indeed, you just admitted that having stated that it is 'orthodoxy to give the 1970s a kicking'! As such, to give it equal weight in the narrative is to give it undue weight and to ignore Wikipedia policy on neutrality. But thanks for your suggestions that the orthodoxy is ideologically driven. Bastin 12:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher liked that poster though, about unemployment, didnt she? 'Labour Isn't Working'. 'Thatcher agreed to the [rough] poster. Then Saatchi's hired a large group of Young Conservatives from South Hendon and photographed them standing in a snaking, despondent, seemingly endless line, the dole queue of every insecure workers worst imaginings.' Sayerslle (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she published that poster. Labour's policy was to maintain full employment, and they failed. Thatcher's policy was not to ensure full employment, but to improve macroeconomic indicators generally, and succeeded. The point of the poster was that the policy of full employment at all costs, which was essentially the Butskellism to which Labour was committed, hadn't worked - she sought a mandate to end it. As a aside, the employment rate was higher when Thatcher left office (75%) than when she got in (74%), and the stronger economy and more flexible labour market has allowed the maintenance of high employment rates, despite dropping the dedication to full employment policy. Bastin 14:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It looked like it was saying unemployment will be lower if you vote Thatcher.

Oh that was the point of the poster. Pity it didn't explain all that . Unemployment was much higher throughout the 1980s wasn't it, and in the end - Jonathan Meades says we got a 'soufflé economy'. You always have an answer,- if Pinochet kills someone, you say, 'well he was left-wing , by definition , for the moments he was killing - ' ... I dont know, but like your hero All you can be sure of is that anyone who sounds as if he has all the answers hasn't. Sayerslle (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? You think that was the point of the poster? I think you've ignored the clarion call of the Thatcher campaign, which was that the country needed a new direction. Yes, unemployment increased during the transition period, because the government dropped full employment as an objective. The end of the full employment policy was kinda the point of Thatcherism - it wasn't secret, which is why there were accusations that she was performing a 'U-turn' in her first year. However, despite the change in policy, unemployment was lower in 1998 than in 1980 - having gone into the Conservative era with high unemployment compared to the EEC, we left it with the lowest unemployment in the EEC. That is why we stopped being called the Sick man of Europe. Hmm. On the absurdism you injected at the last minute, I've never stood up for Pinochet's death squads, and all my economics work is in Austrian Economics, not monetarism, as I make clear on my talk page. But thanks for playing the ad hominem game. Bastin 15:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

New Right economists and politicians made it plain that, in their mind, controlling inflation was more important than the government artificially keeping down unemployment. Whereas inflation was in double figures throughout the 1970s (varying between 13% and 18%) Thatcher reduced it to 5% and stabilised it at this level. This had a major effect on the economy and reassured many people who therefore rewarded her by giving her two more election victories. Crazy inflation, being forced to beg the International Monetary Fund for money, and massive strikes that affected the whole country are very good reasons for the way we remember the 1970s. It is also ironic that one of the reasons Thatcher was ousted in the Tory coup was because she oppossed Lawson and Howe who wanted to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. And as we all know it was Britain crashing out of that in 1992 that destroyed the conservative dominance over Labour in the publics mind on economic competence.--Willski72 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In the article it says " The Conservatives attacked the governments unemployment record.." and the Saatchi poster ..you know...Really ?? You think that was the point of the poster? To imply voting Conservative would mean unemployment heading downwards? Well, yes, actually..I'm not clever or Austrian enough to see that the poster is actually saying "We'll increase unemployment.." And how significant were strikes - ..compared with the 1973 oil crisis - " cheap and plentiful oil from the Middle East had been one of the foundations of Western prosperity since the Second World War.." in making life difficult?..OPEC " beginning to sense its power and securing the first significant oil-price increases of the post-war years? In the 1970s maybe the comfortably off suffered proportionately worse because of high inflation than others but , you know..look how happy they are to see most of the people of the world live off a fraction of what they have..They slagged the country off..the sick man rubbish..and the expensive beginnings of exploiting North Sea Oil happened in the 70s"The capital investment required made it a net drain on our balance of payments 74-78...and then the contribution of North Sea oil revenues to the governments income began to climb 0.3% in 76-77 to 1% in 78-79 "By the North Seas mid-eighties peak, a full tenth- and arguably a politically decisive tenth - of national tax receipts would be coming from" North Sea profits...And.Old fashioned industrial relations! ( this is from Andy Becketts book on the 70s which I'm reading)..existed in the Norwegian oil fields 'unionized from the beginning.Strong unions two weeks on, four weeks off" so " workers on British rigs have cast envious glances there ever since. 'The Norwegian workers have got it sussed' said the engineer as he sat hollow-eyed on his bunk. 'Strong unions...not two weeks on, two weeks off, like us'.. Anyway. the next chapter is called 'Margaret and the Austrians' so perhaps I'll learn about these blinking Austrian economists Sayerslle (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Poster..Versions

This is the version snowded reverted to " The Conservatives attacked the governments unemployment record and used advertising hoardings with the slogan 'Labour Isn't Working' to assist them. The prominence of the advert was partly due to Denis Healey criticising in Parliament Saatchi & Saatchi having 'staged' the photograph with a group of 20 Young Conservatives." Why is that so great. Why is there a red link for 'Labour Isn't Working' - what kind of article will be writen about that? "..to Denis Healey criticising in Parliament Saatchis having 'staged'.." .. reads horribly.. "criticising Saatchis for having staged..' is better no? Why have you put 'staged' in apostrophes - it was staged wasn't it. It was not a documentary photo of a real queue. 'with a group of 20 Young Conservatives', your version finishes. But there seems to be a long snaking queue in the poster. So how was that? The version you reverted to is inferior I believe, I mean I would I guess, so if you revert it, Snowded, why don't you bring your argument to the discussion page? Sayerslle (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The information about the poster belongs in the article on the 1979 general election. If it should be mentioned at all on the Margaret Thatcher article it should be brief.--Britannicus (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference says 20 turned up. It also explains why. As already stated, they are very minor details. Goodness, an advertisement was staged... but ALL bloody adverts are staged; nobody thinks that guy from My Family in the BT ad is actually in love with that middle-aged woman or that all people with Verizon phones are actually followed around by hundreds of Verizon employees. THAT is the reason it's not covered in detail in Thatcher biographies. Since it isn't covered in most of the literature, it shouldn't be covered here. I linked 'Labour Isn't Working' - voted the most successful political ad in British political history - for you to add such trivial details to. Mind you, if you do, the article should be broadly positive, as the literature is; no coatracking, please. Bastin 01:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In the early part of the biography theres nothing about her political/ideological evolution - - when Ralph Harris became Lord Harris Thatcher said 'It was your foundation work which enabled us to rebuild' and of the Institute of Economic Affairs - 'The debt we owe to you is immense.' Apparently it was funded by the profits from a right-wing poultry magnate Antony Fisher who introduced battery farming to Britain.. Makes you vomit really, By the seventies the IEA, like this article, was arguing that the British economy was terminally weak -'Whatever the question the institutes pamphlets posed, their answer, it seemed, was basically identical: less government, lower taxes, more freedom for business ..' Kind of fundamentalist - Thatcher as a political variant of religious fanaticism. A complex world - simple answers. So I think the early part of the article should be broadened with mentions of her ideological views - Harris, Fisher, Hayek, Alfred Sherman, the ex-communist, who wrote her speeches, Arthur Seldon..No doubt you believe all this trivial, but the article doesn't really give any indication she was at all interested in politics or economics - its just in 1965/ whatever she became , in 1974/ whatever she became..thats what is trivial.And the ad could have used a photo of a dole queue. Political advertising does use real people sometimes. Its not like the B.T ad - though all ads can use real people - is she even middle-aged? I don't trust your opinion.Sayerslle (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Esther Hall is 39/40 according to wikipedia, older than I thought, but dictionary.com says middle-aged, adjective, means 'being of the age intermediate betwen youth and old age, roughly between 45 and 65.' So you are wrong. And I don't want to write an article on that poster. Also 'I linked the poster - for you to add trivial details to..' Please, No Personal Attacks. Why are you allowed to lecture me on rules but you do what you like. I dunno. And What were the U-turns Heath performed 1970-74. It says he u-turned but doesn't say how. Sayerslle (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your ideology's kinda getting in the way there. Fisher was a classical liberal, not whatever you or your non-notable buddy author want to imply by 'right-wing'. Oh, geez, he was a farmer! How disgusting! I could quite easily say that Fisher made it possible, for the first time, for all working class Britons to have meat for both lunch and dinner. Indeed, I think I will, because that's exactly what he did.

On the 'IEA said Britain was terminally weak' front... yeah, so did everyone. In fact, it was government policy: 'managed decline'. The narrative of the 1980s and 1990s is pretty much entirely that Thatcher ended that, and you'll be hard-pressed to find a comprehensive encyclopaedia article that doesn't make that its cornerstone. On the ideological front... are you arguing that pressure groups shouldn't be ideological? Nobody ever claimed they weren't or that Thatcher wasn't. That's why there's an ideology named after Thatcher: Thatcherism.

Political advertising very rarely uses real people. If using (unpaid) party activists is illegitimate, every party would be guilty. Indeed, if it is illegitimate, there would be more of an outcry. Instead, the literature barely mentions it. As such, including it as your version would give it undue weight.

I said that YOUR EDITS were trivial - being as or pertaining to trivia as a discourse on that photo shoot would be to this article - not that you were. It's quite clearly not a personal attack. Oh, no, I don't know Esther Hall's age. Boo hoo. Maybe she's playing someone older? She is an actress, after all. Bastin 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He was more of an industrialist than a farmer. The 'narrative of the seventies' isn't set in stone - you are so set in your mind all the time, I'm beginning to see all you Thatcherites as Tory Taliban. Hard-line, intransigent, simplistic, disdainful of all opposition..I know nobody ever claimed Thatcher wasn't ideologically fundamentalist and hard-core I'm saying it doesn't show up in this crap article. Sayerslle (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

" At one IEA lunch before she became Conservative leader , Ralph Harris told her grandly ; 'Our aim is to create a new consensus about the market.' Thatcher shot back 'Consensus? Don't use that word!'. Thatcher in the 70s " I also regularly attended lunches at the IEA where Harris, Seldon..were busy marking out a new path for Britain'. And Patrick Cormack in 1978 summing up their alarmist lurid vision " there is a real risk that our society will be replaced by the sort of tyranny that so many milions suffer under and seek to escape from, in Eastern Europe." This fundamentalist, hater of consensus , why shouldnt this appear in the portrait of thatcher from Oxford to May '79 - why does it all belong on other pages? Sayerslle (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Tory Taliban"! Ha! Slightly witty if grossly factually incorrect! To you the narrative of the 80s is as set in stone as the narrative of the 70s is to the "Tory Taliban". Party propoganda comes in two general forms to influence voters, retrospective and prospective. Retrospective focuses on what has already been, the oppossition will show how bad a government has been whereas the government will show how brilliantly they have done. The prospective form focuses on the future, what a party will do if they are elected/re-elected. The iconic/infamous poster was a retrospective poster, focusing on the increase of unemployment to levels that had not been seen for decades, it was not a prospective poster, voters saw it and thought "the government are useless i wont vote for them". This then leads a voter to evaluate the opposition and vote accordingly, the voters do not have hindsight and so cannot see an increase in unemplyoment on the horizon. This poster makes no promises, it just points out the failures of Labour.--Willski72 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you know what everyone thought when they looked at the Young Conservatives in the poster. I don't have a set view of the eighties, I think nuance is important. Above you wrote that the 70s were massive strikes, crazy inflation, being forced to beg the IMF for money. But the International Monetary Fund was created at Bretton Woods to prevent global economic crises, to lend money to countries if they encountered serious difficulties. It was thought better than recession and war. Britain didn't go cap in hand in the 70s for the first time. It went for loans in 1947,1948, 1965, 1967, 1969 under Labour; in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 under the Conservatives. Britain borrowed more from the IMF between 1947 and 1971 than any other country. And in the mid 1970s Healey cut public spending. Milton Friedman said he ' was a monetarist without knowing it'...Callaghan came to blieve that Keynes ideas were beginning to show their age..'He thought that eventually inflation undermined the whole fabric of society'..It's a nuanced picture..I'm still reading the Beckett book on the 70s..Look at Britain in 1944, on its knees, look at Britain now, we are always in crisis, always in decline..I just think nuance is better than Antony Fisher economics.Sayerslle (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Start typing 'UK IMF' into Google. Guess what it doesn't suggest. It doesn't suggest the other years. When the National Archives publish papers under the name 'IMF Crisis', they don't have to define which crisis, because we've only had one. Why? Because they were a few million here or there to cover balance of payment deficits in individual years. It was necessary because the Bretton Woods accords prevented currencies from depreciating (which would correct deficits by making imports more expensive). They were not bailouts, but single year loans to maintain the gold standard that then existed. As an aside, unsurprising from an economic point of view, the gold standard is flawed for this very reason.

However, the bailout after 1976 was completely different - it came AFTER the end of the gold standard, when Britain could depreciate the Sterling. The British government did that to solve part of the structural problem, but needed to borrow a sum an order of magnitude larger than any previous loan. Hence why the literature treats the mid-70s as a crisis and the previous IMF loans as insigificant. Yes, Callaghan famously realised that Butskellism was killing the economy, but too little, too late. Bastin 16:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

" Killing the economy" Hyperbole. Did you know Callaghans speech was largely written by his son-in-law Peter Jay - and Jay was a monetarist - actually got his appplication for a green card signed by Milton Friedman! The IMF loan , for £2.3 billion.. when the crisis was over Healey said 'We didn't really need the money at all.' In the end the Callaghan government used less than half the loan and paid it back well ahead of schedule. The Treasury figures for the PSBR were unreliable 'I mean , incredibly so said Healey.. right-wing Tereasury officials sowed crisis talk to reap cuts in public spending. This is Bernard Donoughue "In 1976, I remember a Treasury friend said 'What you need is a crisis that frightens ministers into accepting your ideas The bigger the crisis, the more you can frighten ministers.Its what we call the Treasury bounce.'"... Healey " If I'd had the right figures, I needn't have gone to the IMF. Very irritating, but there you are..' His voice trailed off. And then if the North Sea oil revenues had gone to Healey and not to Thatcher in the 80s...Sayerslle (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)