Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Margaret Thatcher. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

1979-1983, final paragraph

I've modified the final paragraph of the 1979-83 section. Most notably perhaps, I changed the reference to the 'Falklands Effect' to a reference to the 'Falklands Factor', which is by far the more commonly used term. I've removed an implication that she would not have won the 1983 General Election with a landslide without it evident in the comment that it "enabled her" to win it; I find this contentious. I've observed instead that it "undoubtedly helped the Conservatives to achieve a landslide victory". I've also changed the comment that she sent the naval task force "immediately" to "within days" which is a little more precise. I've also tried to make the language and grammar work a bit better. Much respect to previous authors and editors though; it's a good read and a balanced piece.

On 2 April 1982, Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas to Argentinians), a British territory claimed by Argentina. Thatcher immediately sent a naval task force to the Falklands, which defeated the Argentines, resulting in a wave of patriotic enthusiasm for her personally, at a time when her popularity was at an all time low for a serving Prime Minister. It enabled the Conservatives to achieve a landslide victory of the Conservatives in the June 1983 general election, in what was described as the 'Falklands Effect'. Her 'Right to Buy' policy of allowing residents of council housing to buy their homes at a discount did much to increase her popularity in working-class areas, although this meant that a housing shortage was to develop for those unable to do so.

Current:

On 2 April 1982, Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas to Argentinians), a British territory claimed by Argentina. Within days, Thatcher sent a naval task force to recapture the Islands. The ensuing military campaign was successful, resulting in a wave of patriotic enthusiasm for her personally, at a time when her popularity was at an all-time low for a serving Prime Minister. The 'Falklands Factor', as it came to be known, undoubtedly helped the Conservatives to achieve a landslide victory in the June 1983 general election. Her 'Right to Buy' policy of allowing residents of council housing to buy their homes at a discount did much to increase her popularity in working-class areas, although this ultimately caused a housing shortage for those unable to do so.

- jamesgibbon 00:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Privatisation

"Privatisation has since been exported across the globe; a testament to its success in rejuvenating moribund government controlled industries while substantially improving the government's balance sheet."

Is that entirely NPOV? Should this be rephrased, or deleted? Dr Gangrene 11:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It certainly isn't NPOV. Not all privatisations worked - BR for example - and it's caused unrest in other countries. I think it should be taken out. -- Arwel 12:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it should remain. To deny the success of Thatcher's privatisations in the terms expressed in the above quote is pointless. Whether it's been similarly popular in other countries isn't really relevant here - the fact that it was tried in the first place following the British example is undoubtedly a testament to its success in the UK. jamesgibbon 12:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that other countries copied privatisation after Britain did it first is not a testament to its success, whether in the UK or anywhere else; it is merely a testament to the fact that other governments liked the idea just as much as Thatcher did. Whether privatisation is successful or not is an extremely contentious point, and a sentence claiming it is successful does not belong in an encyclopedia, which is supposed to report facts, not opinions. Similarly, many would disagree with the claim that privatisation "rejuvenates moribund government controlled industries while substantially improving the government's balance sheet", since that, too, is a matter of opinion, not fact. Dr Gangrene 22:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. Well - I do feel that Thatcher's privatisations in particular were unambiguously successful both for the industries they rejuvenated and their customers. But I agree that the sentence needs to be reworded to be less POV about privatisation in general. jamesgibbon 21:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I second Arwel and Dr Gangrene. This should be deleted or rephrased and moved to the privatisation page. --Kingbot 14:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Causes of the size of the 1983 landslide

the removal of the SDP members was a cause for the movement to the left - there was no counterbalance to prevent it as they'd left!

hmmm - I clearly remember their departure being caused by the movement to the left! jamesgibbon 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, whatever the exact series of events this sentence or two reads well to my mind - the outcomes are described accurately. Thanks. Sliggy 18:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

We can only surmise as to whether the communication difficulties 83.67.65.99 perceives in the SDP-Liberal Alliance were significant. The observable, NPOV electoral fact is that the Alliance split the left and not the right. Combined with first past the post and this is another reason for the landslide. Note that the Alliance got ~24% of the vote in 1983, Labour ~27%, but the Conservatives remained at roughly the same as 1979 at ~43%
- Damn forgot to sign. The above by me Sliggy 19:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't NPOV, it is the result of analyzing swings in a naive way, by assuming that the same voters were involved, and that changes in vote share were caused by single movements in the same direction. The observable results do NOT necessarily mean that 16 percentage-points worth of voters switched from Labour to the Alliance and that most Conservative voters stayed put. It could mean that that many Conservative voters switched to the Alliance, and that was counter-balanced by a nearly-equal swing from Labour to Conservatives. AIUI there *was* a significant degree of straight Labour-Conservative switching among certain electoral groups in 1983, and even more in 1987, and I'm told of opinion poll evidence that suggests that Alliance voters were evenly divided between Labour and Conservatives as their second preference. 87.113.70.192 13:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- The NPOV is simply that the Conservatives benefited from a split opposition, enabling them to win a landslide on a minority of the vote. Why the opposition vote was split, and where it would have gone had it not been split, is not something that can be determined simply by looking at the changes in national vote shares of each party. A much deeper psephological analysis is necessary for that. Saying the Alliance vote "split the left" is POV --- it is only one possible explanation, and not one held by all psephologists. 87.113.70.192 14:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to log in. The above two comments were written by Flagboy 14:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

But it's not an observable fact that they presented a less attractive option to right wing voters than left,+ that POV has been inserted several times today. and James, that's right, the SDP split had to happen after the changes that caused it. The left takeover with the swing to CND and union-dominated leadership elections happened at the 1980 Labour conference. 83.67.65.99

And of course it could have led Labour voters who switched to Alliance in 1983 to have switched to the Tories had the third party not existed in 1983. Flagboy 14:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Demonised figures and abberations :D

83.67.65.99; I've once again removed your comment about ascribing the 1983 election victory to the Falklands Factor being fashionable, on account of Thatcher being a "demonised figure". I tend to empathise with your point of view on that, but it is, nonetheless, definitely a point of view I'm afraid. Regards, jamesgibbon 12:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: the above opinion was reinstated, so I've removed it again. I'd be grateful if other editors would keep an eye on this, or please comment if you disagree with the removal jamesgibbon 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

and I would be grateful if they would also keep an eye out for the word "may", used towards any other reasons than that stupid Falklands myth for the 83 win. "may" is pejorative hence is POV. What's not a POV is to say on any page that any figure was "demonised by her opponents" followed by a sceptical look at the opponents' case not being firmly grounded. But the reason why I keep reinstating it is that the removals always return the text to POV-wrongly crediting the Falklands for the election win. If you want the removal to stand, you've got to find a rewrite that won't do that. 83.67.65.99 2 hours later

I've removed your opinion from the article again. I suggest you solicit some support for it here if you intend to keep reinstating it. A "sceptical look" at a particular case is manifestly POV, and so is the notion that she was "demonised by her opponents". Secondly, I personally do not solely credit the Falklands Factor for the 1983 election win, but there really is no credible doubt that it contributed substantially to it, and I was aware of that at the time, even as an enthusiastic Conservative supporter. The text does NOT "credit the Falklands" for the election win, it merely observes that it is regarded as substantially contributing to it, and that's perfectly true, whether you regard it in that light or not. Finally, note that some of your contribution was amended only because it was awkwardly worded, not because it was POV. jamesgibbon 10:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

(following latest edit by 83.67.65.99): OK - I think the present version is much better, but it still has a tendentious feel to me - it still sounds like it's intended to support a particular point of view to a degree. I'll leave it alone for now though, and let other editors express an opinion or make changes. Thanks for the compromise at any rate. On a personal note, as a great admirer of Margaret Thatcher I'm amazed to find myself defending NPOV against a pro-Thatcher editor here :D - cheers jamesgibbon 13:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I don't like the intro.

How about:

The Right Honourable Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (born 13 October 1925), is a British stateswoman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990, the only woman to date to hold those positions.

Thougts?

Acegikmo1 03:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Like the first half. 83.67.65.99

I don't like thw whole stateswoman title. This is NOT a neutral description. She's a British politician, or more accurately, a "retired British politician." Fishhead64

Probably technically not retired as she still has a right to vote in the House of Lords and has some influence on the internal politics of the Official Opposition. On the other hand, she almost certainly receives her MPs and PMs pensions. Depends whether you see politicians as 'professional' or not...! Stateswoman is obviously wrong in a UK context - sounds like an Americanism? JDancer 18:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

House of Lords

I've clarified the references to the House of Lords, as Hansard shows that she hardly ever speaks in debate there - only three times in fact (on the Scott Report, Hong Kong and Pinochet). [1]

Lady Thatcher's picture - time for a change?

I'm wondering whether the main picture - at the head of the article - is the best one to use for Lady Thatcher. I can't help but feel it doesn't go all too well with the rest of the article.

Might I recommend a discussion to see whether we can find a better one. Personally I find the picture too boring, and lacklustre. The article itself is superb, and clearly one of the premier articles on wikipedia, which has managed very successfully to avoid POV for a figure who arouses very strong political emotions!

However without POV, I think we should consider replacing it with a more iconic one for Lady Thatcher, like one of her more famous ones addressing the Conservative Party at a conference or something. I think an iconic figure like Lady Thatcher should have a more iconic picture, if you see my meaning, regardless of her controversies, and her politics to improve the article further still.

Thoughts?--Jason Hughes 17:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the selection of main pic could be improved. I'll have a look around and see if I can find something. jamesgibbon 15:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We should be looking for a younger, more flattering image. Lady Thatcher has looked better than that. Try one from the late 70s or early 80s. BlueKangaroo

I am by far from a political ally of Mrs. Thatcher, but the change of the pic to the funeral chic one from the previous (post-prime ministerial) one is unflattering. Perhaps a revert is in order (if not a switch to one from her first term?) Snap Davies

I totally agree. I reverted one of the recent image changes, but it has been replaced again with the funeral pic. User:Polon seems pretty keen on replacing all the pics in this article. I'm pretty agnostic about her, but the headlining pic should definitely be changed - even the original is better than what is there now. I actually don't think it is very fair - I mean there are three funeral photos in the article. I think we should revert to original until we get a better one. --PhilipO 06:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced the photo. If anyone finds a better one, feel free to change. --PhilipO 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

election results

I have come across the election results ( nos. of seats won and vote %'s) for the thatcher years. Should they be placed in MT page or elsewhere in wikipedia? Do they belong in each election sub-category? Has anyone got any ideas or strong opinions on this? Eric A. Warbuton 06:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Monetarism in Thatcherism

Thatcher was only "monetarist" for 1979-1982 and those policies were absolutely disasterous: inflation doubled and unemployment trebled. She actually claimed, on abandoning the policy, that "it was a doctrine that I've never subscribed to". That may have been a bit of a cop-out by her, but still I think it's a bit misleading to write that monetarism was a key part of Thatcherism, when it only lasted for three years.

A couple of problems

First, the infobox mentions her predecessor and successor without mentioning the job, i.e. Prime Minister of UK.

Second, the intro reads as if she was (is) universally loved and her policies universally supported, apart from the poll tax. No mention of the critics, no mention of her frequently being called "fascist", no mention of her being probably the most fiercely hated politician in UK by a large number of people. The way it is written now, it sounds like wealth inequality increased only during the early 1980s and was reduced afterwards (was it really?) and the whole thing is qualified with the reference to the global recession. The whole thing doesn't sound very NPOV to me. Zocky 09:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Zocky, you have a point (to a degree). The article does refer to her "polarising" effect, but doesn't clearly show the strength of feeling there was (and still is, indeed). Was there not a year when she topped the annual poll of Radio 4 listeners - winning both the most admired and most reviled Brits? If someone can track that down, it would be very illustrative to include. --A bit iffy 14:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my main problem with the article is it is far too long. I think it ought to be cut down, with the content being put into other, new articles. Off the top of my head, how about separate articles on Maggie's first term in office, her second term, third term, and her downfall? What do people think? --A bit iffy 14:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The only one?

It says in the intro that Thatcher is the only British politician to win three successive general elections, but as of this year isn't that no longer true as Blair has done the same? The sentence is misleading anyway, since I'm sure lots of individual MPs have won their seat lots more than 3 successive times. I'll let the more knowledgeable people on the subject review the sentence before I make the change myself. tracer_bullet 23:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It says "the only British politician to do this in the 20th century". Shanes 23:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, touche. I knew there must have been something I missed. tracer_bullet 03:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It should probably read only British Prime Minister or ..Party Leader... to win three successive elections. The current Father of the House of Commons, Alan Williams MP, has been there since 1964, so he must have been elected at 12 successive elections. -- Arwel (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the (correct) 20th Century bit, this all comes down to the confusion in how we refer to governments and elections in the UK. Technically the Government is always Her Majesty's (even if Mrs T might have seen it otherwise!) and elections aren't even technically won or lost, but are described so based on the parliamentary majorities which are formed as a result. Historical studies of UK politics sometimes to refer to 'administrations' or 'ministries' much as in the US now, to identify a government run by a cabinet led by a particular politician of whatever party. How can we use this to improve the article? Perhaps we could change 'She won three successive general elections, the only British politician to do this in the 20th century' to 'She won three successive general elections for her party... etc', or something similar? JDancer 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Dispute

I find the 'Legacy' section of this article incredibly one sided. The negativity is again incredible.

Not one paragraph of this section is positive. Not one.

(Unsigned comment by User:83.100.141.38)

You have a point. Though you should probably sign in before slapping a NPOV sticker on an article. The section smacks a bit of original work. Looking at the Ronald Regan article and its legacy section it sticks more closely to the facts. Perhaps it should be broken out into Critisms and Legacy ? Megapixie 01:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Given this was a featuread article and is likely heavily viewed the NOV sticker seems a little strong User:83.100.141.38) shoul just add what he feels is missing. Besides if the dispute is about a section not the whole article shouldn't the sticker go on the section? User:cp6ap:cp6ap)

The article should reflect neither negativity nor positivity. It should be a neutral expression of facts. If the article expresses a POV, edit it. But don't do so by adding 'positive' comments. As to the NPOV sticker, you should remove it as soon as you have removed the POV's which you object to. Marcus22 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved the NPOV sticker to the Legacy section, which was suggested; the rest of the article is balanced I think. Whether or not it is a featured article, if it portrays a one-sided view then I think it should be known. I will add 'neutral' comments in due course, but until then the NPOV sticker is apt. to show readers that its neutrality is disputed. --Tfoxton 17:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the NPOV sticker is inappropriate. I found the article, including the "legacy" section, very fair and balanced. Thatcher gives rise to strong opinions, which no doubt explains why some readers confuse their own one-sided opinions with an objective point of view.

Think your wrong, for example in Legacy it reads "Perceptions abroad broadly follow the same political divisions. On the left...", there are no counterarguments from the view of the 'right', the whole section is like this - a one-sided argument. I wasn't ever born when she was prime minister and I don't support her or her views, but I still find it an unbalanced section.

Stateswoman does not suggest a NPOV. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to describe her as "a retired British politician"? Thoughts anyone? Fishhead64 0814, 09 Dec 05 (UTC)

Agree that 'Stateswoman' is a term not often used in the UK, and often implies a particular (and positive) status. In non-British English use, though, this is often used instead of politician, particularly where the particular politician is retired or elderly, or a former holder of high office. She is certainly an 'elder stateswoman' of the Conservative party, implying a status and weight within that grouping, much as Roy Hattersley is an elder statesman of the Labour Party, whatever you think of his politics. JDancer 18:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

500 Pictures?

Nolop has been adding multiple pictures of Mrs. Thatcher to the article. I don't believe that having that many pictures improves the article. Perhaps we could either delete them or move them to a gallery subpage? Thoughts? --Syrthiss 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed they seem over the top. One image of her is more than enough for me! Marcus22 21:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreement here, as well. The overall appearance of the article has been spoiled by an excess of photography. Perversely, the most prominent photograph is a rather poor choice given the huge selection. Will remove a few of them to start. jamesgibbon 12:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dealings with Saddam

Why is any mention of her dealings with Saddam Hussein (as exposed by the Scott inquiry in 1996) invariably deleted?

You need to cite sources for your claims. Canderson7 ^(talk) 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you dispute details then remove them (or comment them out) pending verifying sources. Deleting all mention of Arms-to-Iraq is not appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Longest Serving?

I don't know if she can be considered the longest serving PM of the 20th Century. Maybe she was in the UK, but the longest serving PM of the 20th century would have to be Robert Menzies of Australia, who was in from 1949 to 1966.

Article makes clear that this is in reference to being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. JDancer 18:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Too Few Pictures

I agree that there were too many pictures, now i think there are too few and atleast 2 more need to be added.

The following edit shows the pictures that were removed perhaps someone would like to add some back http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=28283678&oldid=28271847 Megapixie 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thatcher´s Faith

Can someone, please, tell me, what was Thatcher´s religious denomination? Thanks!

Concerning the pictures: They need sorting in a propper order on the page. Be carfull not to put too many back though.

          Thatcher was a Methodist.

only PM to win three consecutive elections?

Surely this needs updating? Glennh70 15:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold and update it yourself if you have conflicting sourced information. :) --Syrthiss 14:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

aha it was specific to the twentieth century, Tony Blair carried on to the 21st!Glennh70 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits to header paragraphs

I've just made a collection of minor edits to the first few paras. First was to remove the reference to Margaret Beckett: the point is being made that Thatcher is the only woman to have been Leader of the Opposition; this is a formal title in Parliament and though the point about Beckett is relevant and should be made somewhere in Wikipedia, it's a little off topic for the second para in a major article. Second was to remove the extra clause after 'she eventually resigned after failing to win outright a leadership election triggered by opponents within her own party, and was replaced by John Major in 1990' which says that he went on to win in 1992: this is too much for one sentence and not so relevant. Also added 'As party Leader' to 'She was undefeated at the polls' in the third para to make the paragraph flow better. Removed 'and certain parts of the UK have still to recover from this' from 'Her supporters contend that she was responsible for rejuvenating the British economy, while her opponents argue that she was responsible for — among other things — mass unemployment and a vast increase in inequality between rich and poor' which might be true but removes the neutral phrasing of the sentence and reads badly.

The rest of that para used to read 'However, supporters of Thatcher have argued that the unemployment during her leadership was a necessary phase the British economy had to go through in converting to a more flexible, high growth economy. They also point out that although the wealth gap widened, the bottom ten per cent of society still saw an increase in real disposable income.'; this seemed to me a little bit he-said-she-said; this para also seems to repeat the arguemnts in the preceeding para; I've brought them together and added a sentence which reflects some of the 'modern' views on the effects of the 1980s and how this influences British politics today; I've tried not to disturb the neutrality/balance of the original. JDancer 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Milk

Could do with adding [2] as a reference about the milk issue. Morwen - Talk 11:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not reinstated the quote, but surely the 3rd reason given above misses the point - if someone in the cited article actually DID accuse 'ol Maggs, even if only therein, then surely the statement originally posted must be factually correct? There has been no attempt to disguise the fact that the accusations were POV: aren't most (all?) accusations, assertions and utterances?

Also, the first given reason for the removal of the contribution may be factually correct, but surely the "summary of what was found in the reference" is what has been removed along with the link?

As to the relevance of the deleted point, the more I consider it the more I think it may actually be a legitimate inclusion to the article. Thatcher did apply quite a lot of weight to her "Family Values" campaign, gaining a lot of useful publicity and basing policy on the assertion that a traditional nuclear family is best. Refusing state assistance and tax breaks for single parents, denying the push toward equal rights for women to claim benefit when temporarily unemployed but married to a working man, and housing policies favouring "normal" families are just three policies I can think of that were affected by the Family Values initiative. (I can provide references should you wish detailing the parliamentary discussions and rebuttals of the ideas, just seems a bit pointless since I'm actually leaving the article alone for now!)

Denis Thatcher and son Mark both made derogatory comments about Thatcher's approach to family life (very different from the approach she repeatedly advocated in their autobiogs) and Carol said a few unsavoury things in that jungle programme (UK) she appeared on recently.

So, I'd appreciate a few more views on the point before I reinstate it or add something similar. Thanks. Codeye 01:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

She is accused of dismantling the Welfare State

This part of the article, at the end of the second paragraph of the Legacy section doesn't seem right to me. She is accused of dismantling the Welfare State and of destroying much of the UK's manufacturing base.

The first charge reflects her government's rhetoric more than its actions, as it actually did little to reduce welfare expenditure, despite its desire to do so.

I find it hard to believe that is true, some proof would be useful.81.178.64.79 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So, you accept she destroyed much of the UK's manufacturing base, then?Phase4 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What a load of crap - before you slate Thatcher, take account of how much Labour have knackered Manufacturing: --TFoxton 01:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Date	number	value
labour force survey - quarterly: old unreweighted
ONS Crown Copyright Reserved [from Nomis on 1 May 2006]
variable	all employed in manufacturing (sec D) as % of all in employment
Date	Great Britain
Sep-Nov 1992	5,236,000	20.8
Sep-Nov 1997	4,966,000	18.8
Sep-Nov 2003	3,991,000	14.2

I think User:81.178.64.79 is right; Thatcher in no way 'dismantled' the welfare state, nor did she attempt in any major way in 'dismantling' it. There was no 'Thatcher revolution' in welfare spending.--Johnbull 01:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "What a load of crap - before you slate Thatcher, take account of how much Labour have knackered Manufacturing: --TFoxton 01:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)"

This article is about THATCHER not a comparison of Tory/Labour failures/successes. Candy 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)