Talk:Margaret Thatcher

'Privatisation' comments by Marxist Andrew Glyn

Andrew Glyn, a Marxian economist, believed that the "productivity miracle" observed in British industry under Thatcher was achieved not so much by increasing the overall productivity of labour as by reducing workforces and increasing unemployment.

Why was this included? It makes absolutely no sense in the section, how does reducing workforces and increasing unemployment increase productivity in those same industries exponentially?Twobells (talk)

Request to Add Items

Dear Wiki Editors,

I entered some important items regarding Margaret Thatcher's 'Legacy' but they've been removed.

They are the 1986 Financial Deregulation (the Big Bang), Rapid UK Deindustrialisation, Abolition of Exchange Controls and the 1983 Regional Economic Development White Paper.

How is it best to include these four important areas?

Best wishes Ian D Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandsmith (talk • contribs) 10:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the best guy to contribute to discussion on Thatcher and Thatcherism but I do know Wikipedia; you should just add the information you want to the article in relevent sections but make sure they are well referenced from credible sources , otherwise it is likely to be removed. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I did all that. For example, I entered:

Abolition of Exchange Controls

In the June 1979 budget, along with chancellor Geoffrey Howe, she immediately started dismantling the apparatus of exchange controls on outward capital flows from the UK despite warnings from Labour members that this would threaten jobs in the United Kingdom.

With a reference to http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/109497 1979 Budget

Iandsmith (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I could suggest then is that a website called margaretthatcher.org is going to have an obvious bias towards Thatcher and so does not comply with NPOV and so, doesn't qualify as a "credible source". While the information on the website may be correct, I would suggest backing the stuff up from other more neutral sources too if possible. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point. Margaret Thatcher.org has been referenced elsewhere on the page and I believe it's a credible transcript of relevant speeches, not just of Thatcher, but Geoffrey Howe's budget speech in this case. I haven't concluded anything about abolition, and according to the Centre for Economic Policy Research, "In 1979 the new Conservative government abolished UK exchange control. There has been very little analysis of the consequences of abolition for the exchange rate, interest rates, equity prices or balance of payments flows."

However, I think it's relevant to the Thatcher "legacy" regarding globalisation in that it was the first time capital was allowed to flow freely out of the UK since 1939: "A comparison of data in the six quarters before abolition in June 1979 with those for the subsequent two quarters reveals a total effect of £638m a quarter on foreign currency borrowing to finance direct investment." http://www.cepr.org/pubs/bulletin/dps/dp294.htm

Globalisation of capital started under Thatcher, and yet we don't reflect her influence on movement of UK money and the steps she took to make that happen.

Iandsmith (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This really isn't my field; but you look like you know what you're talking about, so if you are in the right then you should be OK to put the stuff back into the article (WP:BOLD). --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I already put this on and it was removed. Why would I waste my time putting it on again? These are the facts and this Wikipedia page is woefully lacking the facts about Margaret Thatcher.

The wiki editor only referred to the ’83 white paper: “A white paper on industrial development is not sufficiently notable for that"

That what? The north/south divide maybe? Who knows?

So the 1983 Regional Development white paper which suddenly removed all regional development in the UK isn’t “sufficiently notable”. Maybe the ’83 white paper didn’t lead to the north/south divide. Then true, it isn’t “sufficiently notable” and not worthy of a Wikipedia entry. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether the two events were linked. But the fact about the white paper remains and you can’t see it on Wiki.

You might think that abandoning UK exchange controls so that £700 million left the UK for investment abroad in 6 months changed Britain forever. Surely that would make it worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but the editor would say ”it’s not sufficiently notable for that”.

You might think that sudden deindustrialisation of the UK leading to 100000 jobs being lost per month in the 80s changed Britain forever. Surely that would make it worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but the editor would say ”it’s not sufficiently notable for that”.

You might think that the sudden financial deregulation in 1986, the so-called Big Bang, led to the 2007 credit crunch and changed Britain forever. Surely that would make it worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but the editor would say ”it’s not sufficiently notable for that”.

It's your choice whether you keep Wikipedia relevant, or airbrush history. [[[User:Iandsmith|Iandsmith]] (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)]

OR and POV?

Another user has twice removed (and I have twice restored) the text "...which Thatcher allegedly exploited to take votes from the openly racist National Front.", which is referenced to "The comments were held responsible for a collapse in support for the National Front, which had been gathering momentum in working class communities.", from the Daily Telegraph and has been stable for a good while. This seems like a reasonable summary of the source; am I missing something? Is it the "openly racist"? I think this is necessary to characterize the NF and I am sure it could be sourced if it is indeed the problem. So, what do others think? --John (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because what you state is not stated in the source. It nowhere says 'Margaret Thatcher exploited NF votes' or anything to that effect. You are simply reading what you want to hear. It is simply trying to brand Lady Thatcher as 'racist' and trying to link her with the NF which she is not. It should be left out, thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I quoted the relevant section from the source above. What do you think it means? --John (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read the source and it does not state that Maggie or the Conservatives gained votes from the NF, that is just your interpretation which is OR/POV. It seems like an attempt to link the Conservatives to the NF which they are not. Christian1985 (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done for reading the source, that's a start. So what would you say it means then? --John (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read the source plenty of times and I don't need to explain what it means, but I do know it does not say that Maggie or the Conservatives took NF votes which is what you are trying to add into the article. Christian1985 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL, well actually you do need to explain what you think it means, because it seems obvious to me in the context of the article that this is what it means. If you have some kind of alternative explanation of the source, now would be a good time to state it. --John (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to take that tone and insult me. The simple fact is the source does not state what you want it to, therefore has no place in the article. It does NOT state that votes were gained from the NF that is simply YOUR opinion that is OR/POV. It does not belong in the article, its as simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian1985 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. There's no need to get upset, but this approach isn't really going to work for you. You are removing sourced material which has been stable for months and passed a good article review, and you are unable to properly explain why. Maybe you should think about it some more; I'm in no hurry to restore the material but pending a proper reason to remove it I'm afraid it will have to be put back, even though you don't like it. --John (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to be so patronising. I know full well what I am talking about and I don't appreciate being talked down to. I did NOT remove it because 'I don't like it'. I removed it for the reasons explained and I am getting fed up with repeating myself. You try to claim that Maggie took votes off the NF. Your source does not support this statement. The source says 'caused a collapse in the NF vote' it does not say 'The Conservatives gained from the NF vote', hence why it was removed? I will have to refer this for an outside opinion as you are not listening. Christian1985 (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you are not getting. Once again, what do you think the source means then? --John (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I do get it. I don't need to explain what the source means, that makes no sense.. I know what it doesn't mean and it is not appropriate for the article. It is as simple as this, the source does not support your claims made above, therefore is not acceptable. I have referred this to Dispute Resolution for a Third Opinion because you don't seem to understand why you are wrong? So please stop patronising me. Christian1985 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Here's another source: Time said In a television interview, Mrs. Thatcher called for a "clear end to immigration," on the ground that "people are really rather afraid that this country might be swamped by people of a different culture. And, you know, the British character has done so much for democracy, for law, and done so much throughout the world, that if there is any fear that it might be swamped, people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in." Until that point, only the maverick former Tory Enoch Powell and the small, neo-Fascist National Front had dared to stir up the fears of those who object to the presence of 1.9 million "coloreds" in Great Britain (total pop. 54 million). Thatcher's statement touched off an uproar in Parliament. Labor members shouted "Racist!"

• What would you say these sources say, if you object to the conclusion that Thatcher took votes from the NF by espousing what had previously only been their policies? --John (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter the sources say, the point is they do not support your claims that Maggie took votes off the NF. That is simply your interpretation on the source, that is OR/POV. You cannot prove what you are trying to claim so these statements do not belong in the article. Christian1985 (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does matter what the sources say.

• • the Conservative Party was exclusionist rather than expulsionist, but there is no doubting that its Leader's talk about "swamping" and its very visible application of immigration control, called for in Opposition and effected once in power, successfully drew off the NF vote.
  • With less than 1%, the National Front collapsed. It was apparent that many of its supporters had voted Conservative, largely on the basis of Thatcher's strong stand on immigration
  • Britishness since 1870 By Paul Ward

So, as I am easily able to provide references that explicitly back up the claim I added to the article, do you wish to withdraw gracefully or go down in flames? Your call. --John (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Those references actually do support what you say, although I feel Searchlight (a far-left magazine) is a rather biased and partisan source. But your earlier sources from the Daily Telegraph or Time are not acceptable references and I stand firmly by that. So yes I agree you have now provided sound references. Christian1985 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Dispute about whether a line and its source should be kept or removed from article. ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Margaret Thatcher and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

After reading the source, the source attempts to correlate the released, previously not released National Archive information, text with a political event. However, it does not directly say A lead to B. Furthermore, it does not state in the source that party A gained the votes of party B because party B's support collapsed. It can be correlated by the reader, but such correlation maybe considered original research. Furthermore, attempting to tie one source with other sources, in order to interpret them to lead to a conclusion no one source provides falls under WP:SYNTH, and should be avoided.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources above make the connection utterly explicit though. --John (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

John, the Telegraph reference is not acceptable for this article, why can you not accept that? You don't seem to be getting it. The independent 3rd opinion backs me up. I know you don't like it but that's the rules. So please stop reposting it. Christian1985 (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see below Christian1985 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

To Phillip Cross; it is stated above by the 3O editors that the Telegraph reference is no suitable for this article because it does not provide the claims 'John' was trying to make. It was removed on this basis, please leave it. Christian1985 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the citation to a point covering material which was otherwise likely to be removed, rather than the point about NF voters moving to the Conservatives. The WP article says "She complained privately about Asian immigration in July 1979" while the Telegraph source says: "Lady Thatcher privately complained that too many Asian immigrants were being allowed into Britain". We need evidence of what she communicated, and the Telegraph article provides it. Needs a small rewrite to avoid being an unacknowledged direct quote, but looks sustainable in this context. Philip Cross (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me, thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph source does clearly state that Thatcher "complained privately about Asian immigration in July 1979". As a source for this statement it can stand. Span (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Handbag auction

Haenlein (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Michael: Might be interesting to add this piece of trivia: Lady Thatcher's handbag fetches £25,000 at charity auction -- Black bag carried by former prime minister during 1985 US visit among celebrity lots to raise more than £400,000 for charities http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/27/lady-thatcher-handbag-charity-auction

If you are thinking of adding an actual "Trivia" section, it might go agianst WP:TRIVIA; If you can find a way to work it into the article at a relevant section, then I see no reason why it should be there. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The 'is Thatcher dead yet' website, and controversy

This has not been mentioned either: http://isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/ and the fallout in the national press about it. (SWW) 23:50, 1 July 2011 (ICT)

And that vile hateful website should not be mentioned on this article. Wikipedia is not for people to spout personal bile, it is an encyclopedia. That site is an appalling site and has no place whatsoever on this page like that 'Angry Mob' or 'Mailwatch'. Please leave it out. Also we don't need a controversy section, controversy sections are discouraged on WP as they are often very biased and unfair. The article is fine as it is, thank you Christian1985 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's relavent. Some people didn't like her you know.

It is absolutely not relevant at all and definitely should not be included. I don't if people didn't like her, many people did and that site is a vile and disgusting website run by sick people. It is absolutely sick and inhumane to wish people dead and it appalls me. Christian1985 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested. What "fall out in the national press"? If there is significant coverage it's worth mentioning. Span (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel it is worth mentioning at all, as I have said already it is putrid and sick site and just a junk site like Angry Mob or Mailwatch, it has no place on WP. There hasn't been any 'media fallout' that I am aware of. Christian1985 (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian can you please link to the Wikipedia guideline that states Wikipedia articles shouldn't report unpleasant things.58.84.237.200 (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.212.154.84, 4 July 2011

Typo under Prime Minister >> Foreign Affairs "During a 1998 speech in Bruges she outlined her opposition to proposals from the European Community (EC), forerunner of the European Union, for a federal structure and increased centralisation of decision making." "1998 speech" should read "1988 speech" per the citation associated with that sentence. Thanks98.212.154.84 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Carolyn

98.212.154.84 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)