Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Split article(s)

Maybe do a Later career of Margaret Thatcher and/or Legacy of Margaret Thatcher.--Levineps (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. At 46 kB (7571 words) readable prose size the article is well within WP:SIZE guidelines and is an appropriate length for a major world political figure like this. There is already a separate article Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, which is obviously necessary, but I think Happyme22 has done a good job on organizing the post-PM sections of the article. Biographical subarticles have very low readership and I don't think the effort to additional ones here is warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Wasted Time, no need to split --Snowded (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with WTR and Snowded. Just about everyone reads the main article and the value of much of this material may be lost by splitting it out. Happyme22 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Iron Lady

Thatcher earned the title Iron Lady as an ironic twist as she opposed the Soviet or 'Iron' curtain and the Soviet press gave her the above nickname

SJHQC (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the article says that. Happyme22 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

While although the article does state that she earned the title due to her opposition to the Soviets it does not say who gave her the title

92.251.148.110 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Iron Lady nickname was coined in an article published in the Red Star (24 January 1976). Here's a source: Margaret Thatcher, The Path to Power (London: HarperCollins, 1995) p. 362: 'A stream of crude invective flowed from the different Soviet propaganda organs. But it was some apparatchik in the office of Red Star, the Red Army newspaper, his imagination surpassing his judgement, who coined the description of me as "The Iron Lady".' Here's another: Margaret Thatcher, Speech at Kensington Town Hall ("Britain Awake") (The Iron Lady), 19 January 1976. Margaret Thatcher Foundation. Lachrie (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's (also) a reference to the Duke of Wellington, of course. Like Wellington at Waterloo, she was in the habit of wearing ferrous underpants. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

European Community

90.28.20.103 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.20.103 (talk)

The middle of the three paragraphs under the heading 'European Community' needs moving to a completely separate section headed either 'Council of Europe' or 'European Court of Human Rights' or 'European Convention on Human Rights'. The Council of Europe (with the Convention as its primary legal instrument and the Court which rules on alleged breaches) has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Community/European Union and leaving the paragraph which discusses the ECHR under the 'European Community' heading and between two paragraphs which are about the Community/Union continues to misinform the vast majority who think that they are one and the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.20.103 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is any misinformation, as 90.28.20.103 asserts, in conflating 'European Community' with 'Council of Europe', why not simply revise the heading 'European Community' to 'Europe'? Heading revised.---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

European Court decision, split, etc.

I am a bit confused by the recent addition by User:PJHaseldine in the "Europe" section. The citation [1] says nothing of a policy split over the European Community extending to Parliament, then throws in the part about the British Constitution, presented by a left-wing British magazine with a weak chance of ever passing. I'm not sure of the point being made regarding the detention -- was it a major issue? Because the overviews of Thatcher's premiership that I've read fail to mention anything about it while they of course mention the split within her cabinet over the European Community. So I ask: how does this relate to Margaret Thatcher? And it is notable at all? --Happyme22 (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

After detailing the ECHR ruling, the cited New York Times article actually goes on to say: "Mrs Thatcher will meet with the leaders of Belgium and Ireland at a winter summit meeting of the 12-member European Community on the Aegean island of Rhodes at week's end [3rd/4th December 1988]. The court's judgment, came as the New Statesman society presented to Parliament a petition for a written British Constitution, signed by more than 200 public figures in the arts, education, entertainment and the law."

I recall that in political arguments over Europe at the time, the two European courts (Human Rights and Justice) were often confused both in the media and the public mind. Whenever a court judgment went against Britain, anti-Europe politicians (of all parties) would complain that European law was taking precedence over British law, and had to be reversed. This ruling must have been particularly galling for Mrs Thatcher, who was very critical of Belgium and Ireland for not extraditing the suspected terrorist.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In the overall context of her administration it was a relatively obscure event, and I think given too much coverage here, but it could perhaps be inserted into the premiership subarticle. Lachrie (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Title

She is "Baroness Thatcher", not "Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven". The "of Kesteven" part is a territorial qualification and not part of her title (she was created "Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincoln"). Proteus 19:58 GMT 6th January 2004

I changed the article to reflect this (moved the "of Kesteven" out of the title and to above the quick-look table) some time ago; is this a suitable and/or sufficient change, in your opinion?

James F. (talk) 09:26, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "of Kesteven" part shouldn't really be mentioned at all. It's an obscure relic of the previously feudal nature of British peerages that all Barons and Viscounts are created, for instance, "Baron A, of X in the County of Y" or "Baron A of B, of X in the County of Y". The bit after the comma only really belongs in a book on peerages, and should never be used to describe the peer. People who really are "Baron A of B", like Lord Falconer of Thoroton, have the "of B" bit before the comma (he is actually "Baron Falconer of Thoroton, of Thoroton in the County of Nottingham"). Proteus 14:56 GMT, 13th January 2004

Local government

This article needs some more regarding the relationship between Thatcher policies and local government (which were amongst her most major and often controversial policies).

I had a go at writing something myself, but don't think I can produce something good (and sufficiently NPOV) in the time available, so am asking if someone else could please give it a go. (Go on, you know you want to :-)

Here are a few bullet points to get started:

• general trend towards centralisation of power (e.g. the referred-to changes to ownership of council housing was a centrally imposed decision on local authorities)
• 1986, rate capping (i.e. limiting councils' ability to impose their own rates), leading to direct action by members of hard-left "Militant" group on Liverpool City Council
• war of attrition between Labour councils (sometimes branded "loonly left") and Thatcher government; above is one example; also e.g. when unemployment reached 3 million, a large banner about it was displayed from the Greater London Council (GLC)'s County Hall, which faced the Houses of Parliament across the river; also e.g. Lambeth "nuclear-free zone",
• 1986, abolition of GLC, headed at the time by Ken Livingstone (who of course later became Mayor of London), and various other metropolitan councils
• maybe discussion of 1988 local government act (but avoid a lengthy rehash of Section 28 page please)
• relate poll tax (community charge) to local government taxation -- not clear from existing article that it was funding mechanism for local councils; NB need to clarify that "flat rate" was only within each local authority, and differed between authorities.

Many thanks!

--Trainspotter 15:07, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bias

A clearly biased article. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopaedia?

--204.174.98.41 05:45, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What, exactly, would be the nature of your complaint? We're happy to address any problems that you find with the article.

James F. (talk) 09:26, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Relabelling of parliamentary terms as PM

On the Ministries - is it wise to label them "First Government", "Second Government" and "Third Covernment" when other reshuffles took place as well? Also "Government" implies a new term of office - something that doesn't exist in the British constitution and could cause confusion if applied to earlier periods. Can I suggest labelling each substantial reshuffle with a heading in its own right - I think there's a good listing with clear break points in her own memoirs which I can dig out soon. Timrollpickering 20:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, I just felt the need to break it up and make it more manageable. The three main divisions correspond with the coming to power and the two subsequent General Elections. Mackensen 21:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Chemical career

Anyone know of M.Thatcher's involvement with the development of Hydrogenated fats? Mat-C 12:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ISTR that she was part of the team that is credited with the creation of aerated ice cream, which would include fats, I suppose. Don't know anything more than that, sorry.

James F. (talk) 11:16, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There was some comment about being able to sell air rather than ice cream? Mark Richards 19:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Poll tax rewording

I feel that the article as a whole is quite biased. But here is one specific example, on the Poll Tax:

"Some on the far left deliberately refused to pay and one large London demonstration turned into a riot."

I suggest changing this to:

"What started as protest turned into concrete resistance - over 17 million people refused to pay, courts and bailiffs were disrupted, and one large London demonstration turned into a riot after the police used mounted baton charges against a nonviolent sitdown protest outside Downing Street."

This is my first time contributing to wikipedia so I don't know exactly how it works. I imagine if there are no objections after a suitable period I can just change it myself?

--owen 01:14 BST 5th May 2004

What you've changed it to is fine, IMO; feel free to go right ahead and change it.

The way the Wikipedia works is that you don't need our immediate permission (though you do need general consensus in the long term) - we attempt to be bold in our editing.

Welcome!

James F. (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

"17 million people refused to pay" sounds extremely dodgy. There were about 42 million people eligible to pay and I certainly don't think 40% actively joined a campaign to avoid paying. Also the section on the riot is distinctly POV and not strictly relevant to Margaret Thatcher. Dbiv 16:54, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I can't verify the numbers, but it was a lot of people who were late / did not pay - it could be true, although it does need verifying. Mark Richards 19:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I got the figure from "Poll tax rebellion" by Danny Burns. I should mention two things about this figure which I probably should have mentioned somewhere in my original wording:

1. It's also unclear how many of these nonpayers were 'can't pay' cases, how many were 'won't pay', and how many were both. This is certainly *not* a claim that 17 million 'joined a campaign' - in fact most of the resistance to the poll tax was on an informal, community level.

2. 17 million is the 'peak' figure. Official figures were published detailing how many people liable to pay had still not done so, and the highest of these was the 17 million figure. In other words, many of those 17 million later did pay up, for whatever reason.

Even if you don't believe the 17 million figure, the claim that non-payment was restricted to "some on the far left" seems ridiculous to anyone with firsthand knowledge. Here are some sources I've managed to find online at short notice which dispute this claim, and show that nonpayment was massive and widespread:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199192/cmhansrd/1992-01-13/Debate-2.html

"...400,000 summonses, £17 million in uncollected poll tax and £100 million wasted on implementing the poll tax in Wales alone..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3853887,00.html

"Six full years after the poll tax's demise, an estimated 4,000,000 people who declined to pay as much as £5 billion of the controversial levy are now immune from prosecution."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/14/newsid_2495000/2495911.stm

"One in five people in England and Wales had paid nothing towards their community charge - or poll tax - by the end of June, a survey has revealed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3297425.stm

and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3251300.stm

and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1994611.stm

"It led to a mass non-payment campaign in Scotland..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3450869.stm

"Non-payment was a serious problem when the poll tax was in operation."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/956145.stm

"The letter had been sent by sheriff officers as South Lanarkshire Council mounted a widespread hunt for the £20m owed by 30,000 poll tax dodgers."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V76-3SWTPBK-1-1&_cdi=5834&_orig=search&_coverDate=05%2F01%2F1997&_qd=1&_sk=999359997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkzS&_acct=C000010360&_version=1&_userid=126524&md5=f84526a47ca7c0a9b4c02750411340d2&ie=f.pdf

and http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp100/anarchy.htm

and http://www.nber.org/papers/w4498

"The experience of the poll tax provides a unique opportunity to study many dimensions of tax compliance. ... these rates [of nonpayment] rose to unprecedented levels as well as exhibiting considerable variation across authorities. ... A combination of political protest, perceptions of unfairness and substantial increases in average tax rates in the year of introduction undermined willingness to pay, with nonpayment rising to well above fifty per cent in a number of areas. In fact the problem became so severe, along with the social unrest manifested in the poll tax riots of 1990, that abandonment of the tax was promised within the first year of its operation, following the replacement of Mrs. Thatcher as Prime Minister. ... by the end of the year opinion polls showed over 90% expressing discontent with the tax."

So, we have:

-400,000 summonses in wales alone by January 1992 (parliamentary debate)

-an estimated 4,000,000 nonpayers still outstanding six years after the poll tax is abolished (Guardian)

-By the end of June 1990 (three months after poll tax introduction to England and Wales), one in five had still paid nothing. (BBC)

-talk of "mass nonpayment" in Scotland (BBC)

-30,000 nonpayers still outstanding by October 2000 in South Lanarkshire alone (BBC)

-unprecedented nonpayment levels...rising to over 50% in a number of areas ("Fiscal anarchy in the UK: modelling poll tax noncompliance" - a paper published in 'Journal of Public Economics')

Do those sound to you like the actions of only "some on the far left"?

(See my latest change for a suggested wording).

ChickenMerengo 22:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The problem I had was with the implication that the 17,000,000 figure applied to those who joined an organised campaign of non-payment. There may have been 17,000,000 behind with payments at some stage but this does not imply that it was deliberate. All taxes have some level of evasion and some who forget to pay, and the initial rate of collection of Council Tax can't be more than 80% before reminders have to be sent. In urban areas it's probably much less. (I am a member of the Finance Committee of my local council)

I was around at the time as a student, paying 20% poll tax from 1991. My experience was that many people talked tough in saying they would resist paying in order to talk themselves up in left-wing politics, but finally paid up when summonsed because they didn't want the hassle, and the tax was already being abolished. Organized non-payment really did not exist outside the left-wing of the Labour Party and the far left groups. "Poll Tax Rebellion" by Danny Burns is also a highly partial source. If you had cited "Failure in British Government: Politics of the Poll Tax" by David Butler, Andrew Adonis and Tony Travers (ISBN 0198278764), that would be a different matter.

However I think the wording at present is acceptable with only minor amendment: the poll tax was introduced in 1989 in Scotland. Dbiv 10:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Yep, I'm more or less happy with it as it is now too.

ChickenMerengo 16:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Sinister

Am I the only one who thinks that the photo of her looks rather sinister? Almost vampiric? Mark Richards 23:23, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Dates

I thought we were to use British dates for British subjects. At any rate, is "month day," really "international"? I thought it was primarily American. john k 00:32, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Cabinet information

I won't protest the removal of the list of Thatcher's cabinet members, per se, but I will note that there are a whole lot of pages - all the British PMs, and several French PMs and German Chancellors - who have their cabinets listed on their main page. Rather than just an ad hoc removal from this page because people want to feature the article and don't like the cabinet list, perhaps we could come up with a general policy to move all this information to its own page? john k 06:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The policies are already in place - articles should not exceed 32k, and should not have overwheliming TOCs. These policies necessitated moving the cabinet information. →Raul654 06:57, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

There is no policy - It is awkward for short articles to have the cabinet listings there, and long articles to have them elsewhere. We should either keep them all at the article, or move them all elsewhere. john k 07:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We should make this policy, especially for countries where "shuffling" is common. --Jiang

I would concur. I was not saying we shouldn't make such a policy. I was only saying that I don't think that moves should be made unless we agree to such a policy first. Just using the "pages shouldn't be more than 32K" as a rule will only result in confusion and inconsistency. And a clear policy is also in order for other reasons - should all the cabinets of a particular individual be listed in one article, or should they each be split out into their own article? john k 07:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm certainly in favour of creating a policy that we should split them all into separate pages. — OwenBlacker 12:22, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

A reason not to split the information out is that articles like Cabinets of Margaret Thatcher are real snoozefests. The 32k rule is being applied blindly and inappropriate here. Why do we have the 32k rule? The standard answer is that people don't like to read too much - but list/alamanac information is not prose! 32k of prose is a reasonable rule, 32k blanket is not. Are there any other arguments for splitting up the page? It seems to me that we have cut out the "ugly" lists in order to get this article featured, which seems backwards. Pcb21| Pete 12:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pete, here – by and of themselves, the list of Cabinets is uninteresting and, really, unencyclopaedic, when removed from the context of discussing the various power struggles that took place, and how Cabinet changed and reformed over the quite lengthy period. John may not being willing to protest against the removal, but I will. The 32K-limit is a silly arbitary rule originally borne of technical incompetance and now preserved without significant discussion 'because it's there' - why not 40K? 50K? 37.354K?

James F. (talk) 14:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's fine with me, too. What I'm really objecting to is the idea that the 32K rule somehow justifies treating the same issue in different ways in different articles, which is simply ridiculous. Either cabinets should be in the article, or they shouldn't be, regardless of length questions. john k 16:18, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The details about the structure, function and policies of her administration is really a separate topic. So when the article gets long enough, then stuff like that can be summarized here and the detail moved to its own article. However, much longer articles like George W. Bush would probably be better candidates for that type of thing so that the resulting daughter article isn't just a list. This article should be read carefully to see if there are any parts that could be summarized and spun off in a natural way. --mav 23:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just a thought

I was thinking perhaps the "Legacy" section should be split into "supporters" and "opponents" so both pro and anti Thatcher arguments can be listed. As is beffiting for one of the UK's most controversial Prime Ministers of the past century. G-Man 13:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Be careful with that - it may cause its own problems. For instance, an important part of her legacy is the vastly diminshed power of the unions. But where would you talk about it - many people support(ed) it but many also oppose(d) - by having just one legacy section you avoid this sort of issue. Pcb21| Pete 07:26, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All respect, but I think there is nothing more likely to lead to POV nonsense than separating the sections like this. To take Pete's example, if you divided it up, you'd either choose to put the thing about labor in one section or the other "Among Thatcher's achievements was weakening the power of labor unions" or "Thatcher's opponents charge that she was a great enemy of organized labor" or whatever; or else you put both of those statements in. Why not just factually state what happened as a result of Thatcher's tenure, and avoid the partisan polemic as much as possible? Every page that I've ever seen that is divided up on the basis of "partisans of such and such say this" and "opponents of these people say this" has been a mess. john k 07:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kesteven

I think we should add the Kesteven thing, perhaps in a footnote, otherwise people who think they have spotted an ommision will add it. We can explain that it is a common but incorrect usage. Morwen - Talk 18:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added the territorial qualification into the text. Do you think that will be sufficient? Proteus (Talk) 19:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That looks fine. Morwen - Talk 10:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Downing Street Years

In her book the Downing Street Years she said that when visiting Australia she referred to Paul Keating as "Finance Minister" of the country. That is actually incorrect. Keating was the Treasurer. While Australia does have a Finance Minister he is actually junior to the Treasurer in economic responsibility. It is the Treasurer not the Finance Minister who delivers the Budget. Another thing I notice about the book is in regard to Cecil Parkinson's resignation from her Cabinet. She was not specific of why he resigned only saying that "he was shortly to resign". --The Shadow Treasurer 29 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I've just reverted a massive edit by an anonymous user [2] and notice (1) that VeryVerily did something similar from a very similar IP yesterday [3] and (2) that the same IP made some very POV edits to Michael Portillo, according to that IP's talk page; a note on this IP's talk page suggest there is history to this. Just a warning to anyone watching this article. — OwenBlacker 19:52, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism at all, simply setting out the truth about a highly unpopular politician. Pity you can't accept the principle of free speech and have sought to censor my contributions. Your continuing attempt to post the idea that the British economy was 'doing well' by 1983 is an example. Unemployment was rising, bankruptcies were huge and massive swathes of British industry were closing. Not a sign of an economy 'doing well' is it? Furthermore you have edited my comments about Thatcher's shirking war service when Britain's back was against the wall. She should have been contributing to Britain's war effort, not sitting it out at Oxford. — User:195.92.198.72 12:46, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you think that sentences like "She was also nicknamed the 'Bargain Basement Boadicea' for her small-minded views on national economics." is a quite neutral statement that doesn't make any stand at all at whether her views were right or wrong, right? Changing "Heath supporters" to "sensible people" is a quite neutral statement according to you, and doesn't take an authorial stance on whether it was Heath supporters or Thatcher that was correct, right? Calling the wave of patriotism "misguided" as if the article has any right to pass such judgment? Go to hell, anonymous and cowardly vandal troll -- you are so rabid that you don't have a clue about neutrality of point of view even means. Aris Katsaris 21:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

re: Thatcher at Oxford: I belive (though I have been unable to verify) that lots of people atended University during WW2, mostly to train "essential workers" e.g. teachers, doctors, or in Thatchers case, industrial chemists. I think the edit the anon user is advocateing is a) trivial, and b) extreamly loaded and POV. Iainscott 17:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Come on, even I, a strident liberal and left-winger, can say that Thatcher's article should never be vandalized and erased. If you wish to voice your opinion, do it on the talk page, and not the article proper, because everyone deserves to be educated as to why Margaret Thatcher, a k a "The Iron Lady," was indeed how you described her. If you truly treasure liberal ideals, then you should feel ashamed for attempting to thwart one's ability to educate one's self about the horrors of conservatism. And education is a liberal value, so you are basically raping your own mother, i.e., liberalism. And I absolutely hate the word "bitch"; do not use it, for it is the product of a sexist, misogynist, stereotype. You, my friend, are the enemy of liberalism, for you apparently hate the values for which it stands; and are the enemy of the left, for you attempted to remove from public view the horrors she, and conservatism, committed. --KingGeekoid 15:38, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to revert to the most recent legitimate version to overcome a revision from an apparent mental illness sufferer, but it seems I've failed. As someone who greatly admires Baroness Thatcher, and recognises the debt of gratitude owed to her bt the British People, I do hope someone can fix this page. Thanks. --Jamesgibbon

Gibbon, you are evidently deluded if you think that opponents of Thatcher are 'mental illness sufferers'. You are a highly biased supporter of Thatcher, as you have yourself declared; your contributions should therefore be judged in this light and your credibility as a serious and objective commentator is now damaged beyond repair.

- idiot,

In fact my comment was addressed specifically to an individual who had vandalised the page. jamesgibbon

Many thanks to the kind individual who has restored this page and overcome the most recent act of vandalism inflicted upon it :) Jamesgibbon 00:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is now a vandalism war in which factual additions that have not imbalanced the article's perspective are being removed within hours in a politically biased way. The article can be placed under a neutrality challenge, you know. Anyone who looks at the history of my attempts to revert the vandalisms can see that they have left in place all points that others have added. That's what we must do: not remove facts that others have contributed, both pro and anti Thatcher. 83.67.65.99 Aug 4. I retract this- there isn't a vandalism war going on, there's a bug in Wikipedia. What happened was I logged into the article quite normally and what came up was an old version.(??) - 2 minutes later!