Talk:Margaret Thatcher

Flexible labour markets?

I just tried to replace the phrase 'flexible labour markets' in the lede with something a little more meaningful, then immediately realised that I was duplicating, and self-reverted. Perhaps people here know what the phrase means, but I wonder where in the body of the article it is elaborated in a WP:NPOV way, as I can't find it. As stated, it sounds like an admirable aspiration - who would vote for inflexible ones? - but I wonder what it meant to working people at the time in practice. I imagine that a great many people lost their jobs, or were somehow re-employed for much less money. I don't think the phrase adequately summarises their point of view. --Nigelj (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the elaboration of 'flexible labour market' in the body of the article, either in a NPOV way or not. The flexibility of labour increased considerably in the 1980s, so that ought to be there. I.e fewer instances of tightening a wood screw requiring a carpenter and tightening a bolt requiring a fitter. And e.g solicitors lost their monopoly on conveyancing. But I don't know what flexibility of the labour market refers to.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

sycophantic nonsense

Where is the NPOV? This article is riddled with so much sycophantic nonsense it is not possible get anything useful out of it. Even the Tory supporting Telegraph describes her as the divisive, and the independent as the most divisive PM the UK ever had. She was completely hated in the North were people cheered when she died. No doubt I will get shouted down by her fans, but the truth cannot rewritten.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/margaret-thatcher-obituary-the-most-divisive-political-leader-of-modern-times-8564559.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9980331/Margaret-Thatcher-yes-she-was-divisive-but-she-needed-to-be.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is extremely well written, and well sourced. Her divisiveness is discussed in two paragraphs in the political legacy section. The article seems extremely neutral and accurate to me. Perhaps you could highlight the sections that you feel are not NPOV and we could work on improving them? Atshal (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Lady/Baroness

This says either is acceptable: and this suggests that her preference was Lady Gravuritas (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Her official name was Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher; so as both are acceptable, let's stick with Baroness. Andreas11213 (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Zacwill16, this source suggests that the wife of a Baron is Baroness. Sir Denis Thatcher was not a Baron, Margaret Thatcher was a Baroness in her own right, so Lady is not the correct term. Andreas11213 (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A baroness in her own right can be styled either Baroness or Lady, though Lady Thatcher preferred the latter. Read the sources Gravuritas provided. Zacwill16 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither source suggest she preferred the name Lady Thatcher, however one of them says she liked the name Iron Lady, but that is not her official name. She was given life peerage as The Baroness Thatcher so the name she was given life peerage to should be used. Andreas11213 (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your first sentence is incorrect, so your conclusion fails. In the second source I provided, under the Biography (Conclusion) para, it says "Lady Thatcher, as she became...". It's a fair assumption that the Margaret Thatcher Foundation would use the name that she preferred.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, just because there is one source with one reference to Lady does not mean she preferred it, that is absolute rubbish. If there is not a quote of her specifically saying she preferred it then no other source is acceptable. She was given life peerage as The Baroness Thatcher, not the Lady Thatcher and you don't have a source that provides a specific quote of her saying she prefers Lady Thatcher, so it will stay Baroness. Also, The Lady Thatcher doesn't even make sense. Andreas11213 (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If the Mickey Mouse Foundation referred to him as Michael Mouse instead of Mickey, you could assume that his preference was clear. So it is in this case, in the absence of other sources. I'm quite happy to be contradicted by a source, but not by your unsupported bald assertion. Her title was indeed The Baroness Thatcher, but the box refers to her name, not her title. You've tried to ignore the Debrett's reference to either Lady or Baroness being acceptable, and you're ignoring it again. afaik, Debrett's are experts in this field of trivia. You may well be right about 'The' being inappropriate in front of Lady- if it makes you happy, feel free to get rid of 'The' as far as I'm concerned.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What the foundation says is irrelevant. Her official title - and thus the version that should be used in the infobox - is The Baroness Thatcher. "The Lady" is only used for wives of Barons, NOT for Baronesses in their own right. See the pages for any other British Baroness if you need to be reminded.

Try reading with a bit of precision. The box under discussion is called "name", not "official title", so in fact it's your comment on official title that is irrelevant. If you look at say TB's equivalent entry, he is Tony Blair- because that's what he wanted to be called- not Anthony hoosit wotsit Blair. So her preference is significant, and evidence from the Thatcher Foundation is indeed relevant. Furthermore, on the immensely boring subject of who is referred to as Lady and who isn't, try reading the Debrett's link I gave and, if you wish to take this further, explain why your utterance should carry more weight than Debrett's.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The convention on Wikipedia is that peers and peeresses are always given their official peerage title in an officeholder infobox (unless disclaimed). Every other British suo jure Baroness is styled as "The Right Honourable The Baroness Something" if their infobox is of the officeholder type. Robin S. Taylor

I agree that it should be "The Baroness Thatcher" rather than "Lady Thatcher" since the former was her official title (see, for example, the notice in the London Gazette announcing her peerage). Debrett's opinion isn't really relevant in this case since they are dealing with social usage, and social usage isn't necessarily going to be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. In other words, it is fine to refer to a life baroness as "Lady Doe" on an envelope or in conversation, but an encyclopedia article arguably requires a greater degree of formality. Furthermore, as Robin S. Taylor has pointed out, other Wikipedia articles generally use the style "Baroness Doe" in the officeholder infobox. Sesh84 (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As an addendum to my earlier comment, I should like to point out that the style "Baroness Doe" is used regularly on a day-to-day basis. See, for example, Baroness Stowell of Beeston's page on the Number 10 Downing Street website and Baroness D'Souza's page on Parliament's website.Sesh84 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile

Back in April 2013 there was a very brief discussion about Savile. An editor opined that the friendship had more to do with Savile's manipulation than anything to do with Thatcher.

I would say that was always a debatable POV, but the situation has changed since. Thus in July 2013 a Freedom of Information request by The Sun newspaper demonstrated Thatcher's commitment to knighting Savile, despite advice to the contrary from Sir Robert Armstrong, head of the civil service at the time. The Cabinet office initially refused the FOI request, but the Information Commissioner ruled there was compelling public interest in releasing the relevant files. It seems to me that likewise there is similarly a compelling public interest in recording the facts in Wikipdia.

Moreover, within the last few hours as I write, the notable broadcasting personality Noel Edmonds has suggested that the Royal family and Margaret Thatcher was as much to blame for the Savile scandal as the BBC.

I think it plain that some mention of these reports should be made in the article. Presently I can't edit at the article because it's protected and I'm awaiting confirmation of my account. But I would be pleased to see editors here making the necessary edits, and if not I shall eventually edit myself. Sock of ages past (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

How long do we have to wait? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I gather it takes four days and ten edits to get your account confirmed, though I'm not planning on making any edits in the immediate future. I'll be editing on politics and current affairs, but I don't have anything in mind at the moment, so if you or any other editors would like to make the relevant edits that's fine by me. I do think there should be some mention, I suppose as a new sub-section of "Legacy". Sock of ages past (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you could manage 2 and a half edits a day? I'd be surprised if other editors would think a whole new sub-section justified just for this addition. Are Edmonds remarks being considered at Jimmy Savile? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Savile was awarded an OBE in 1971. Clearly Ted Heath was in on it too. Personally, my opinion of Edmonds tends towards that of Smith and Jones' characters, but I doubt he will be bothered by that. I think the current coverage is about right. I will check the indexes of a couple of biographies, but I don't remember Savile having a big part in her life. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree this is more relevant to Savile than to Thatcher. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a litle in Charles Moore's biography. His conclusion is Mrs Thatcher, like so many others, took Savile at face value. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy to include that. Can you give a page ref? Thanks. Sock of ages past (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think The Sun FOI request and subsequent revelations make it notable. I imagine readers turning to Wikipedia for encylopaedic commentary and disappointed to find nothing. Off the top of my head (and without researching how many consectutive Christmas/New Years Savile actually spent as Chequers, I suggest something similar to this with appropriate wikilinking and citation :

In the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, newspaper reported that Savile had been invited to Chequers on numerous occasions as a guest of the Thatcher family. Aides declined to comment, but commentators observed that it would not be unusual for a British prime minister to champion a noted charity worker in this way. Charles Moore, Thatcher's official biographer, commented that Thatcher, like so many others, simply took Savile at face value. It subsequently transpired that Thatcher had repeatedly tried to get a knighthood for Savile, against the advice of the then head of the Civil Service who countenanced caution regarding Savile's "complex personality". In the event, Savile was only knighted after Thatcher left office.

Something like that. But I'm not very invested here and I'm not prepared to make a series of pseudo-edits simply to get confirmed and overcome the protection here, verging on abuse I think. I am planning an article start for the recent ECJ benefits tourism judgment Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, and if after that I don't see an edit at the article I shall make a WP:BOLD edit along the lines I suggest above. At the same time I'll note Edmonds' comments at the Jimmy Savile article. Really the scandal should have an article of its own (perhaps it has, haven't checked). Sock of ages past (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, though that article doesn't go into detail about his relationship with Thatcher. Perhaps, see also Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for that. As I say I simply hadn't looked for it. Sock of ages past (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Utterly disagree about Edmonds remarks. They were both prominent BBC DJs at the same time, and given the scale of Savile's activities it is difficult to believe that all of Savile's and Edmonds's colleagues knew nothing. For Edmonds to come up and say that it was everybody else's fault just as much as the BBC's (and by implication, everybody else's fault just as much as Savile's BBC colleagues) is special pleading, to put it mildly. Don't turn WP into a garbageopedia. The Sun has marginally more substance but in summary, it seems that Thatcher asked for him to be knighted and was unsuccessful. Not much of a factoid for which to demand room in a WP article that includes the Miners strike, the Falklands and cold wars, Iraq, privatization, council home sales......

Gravuritas (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Edmonds' remarks germane here. Whether he's right or wrong, neither here nor there. I'm in my mid-sixties. If you were able to visit the sex shops of the mid 1970s in Soho, London, before the 1978 Protection of Children Act, at a time when child pornography was openly available and on display, and that despite disquiet raised for some time in national newspapers, you would be forced to conclude I think that there was a significant sense in which British society at large, and not just the BBC nor for that matter the Establishment, was negligent. That was precisely why the 1978 Act was enacted. Your "garbage" remark untoward. Sock of ages past (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what do you mean exactly by "verging on abuse"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. were you unaware of Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal?

1. Close to "gaming the system" in Wikipedia jargon 2. Yes. Sock of ages past (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. Just a way of encouraging you to edit! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for that. Misunderstood you. But all the same I'll wait until I've started Dano, so there can be no question of bad faith. Sock of ages past (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sir Peter Hayman

An interesting news story reported in The Independent, The Guardian, and even the Daily Mail makes the claim that Thatcher suppressed mention of the paedophile activities of Sir Peter Hayman. Given this, it's clear that Thatcher was both aware of these accusations, and, as the document shows, in their suppression from the public sphere. -- Impsswoon (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)