Talk:Thatcherism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thatcher's Legacy[edit]

No mention of the British economy now Thatcherism has finally pushed it over the cliff? Why in this article does it just stop before it all goes to s**t? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.237.145 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

f*** o** u ignorant twat.81.106.185.247 (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out Labour had been in power for over a decade before the economy plunged, strengthening the trade unions and doing their best to destroy the country. Tory88 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Economic Growth[edit]

The leading paragraph to this article finished with a claim that Thatchers policies ushered in a new era of economic growth. Such a claim is contentious, I've removed it. The beginning and end of Thatchers term in office were marked by recession [1]. Now, whether or not this was down to Thatcher is also contentious. Conjecture on such a controversial figure can only invite trouble. JamJar (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The numbers point to the original article's assertion; in 1978 UK growth figures suggested that GDP per head would be ~50% that of France or Germany by the late-1980s, yet by the mid-1990s it was clear that Britain was moving towards, & potentially beyond, parity with these nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


Thatcherism is the system of political thought attributed to the governments of Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister during the 1980s.

See also Reaganomics and Rogernomics. Thatcherism is characterized by a free market liberalism perhaps more closely associated with Victorian Liberalism in the United Kingdom, low taxation, trenchant opposition to vested interests not seen to be associated with the English middle classes, (which it sought to expand at the expense of the manufacturing base) -- especially the Trade Unions -- and a suspicion of the institutions of the British Welfare State. Thinkers closely associated with Thatcherism include Keith Joseph and Milton Friedman.

Whether it ultimately benefited Britain or not, it destroyed the post-war consensus of British politics. In 2001 Peter Mandelson, a member of parliament belonging to the British Labour Party closely associated with Tony Blair, famously declared that "we are all Thatcherites now", in reference to the perceived shift that created the "New" Labour Party that came to power in 1997.

Typo?[edit]

" After the initial shock of getting pounded by mock"

If "Thatcherism" is a term of abuse...[edit]

Original piece was by moi: PainMan 04:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

...what's it doing as the header of an encyclopedia article? "Thatcherism" is a meaningless term--except when expressing one's contempt for free markets, low taxes, curbing governmental intrusiveness and strong national defense. The author's glancing reference to this hardly takes the venom out of the sting!

"Thatcherism" is not generally accepted to be a term of abuse; it is merely used as one by those who fail to understand its merits. As a long-time admirer of Mrs Thatcher, I think it an appropriate topic for a separate article jamesgibbon 11:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Thatcherism is not generally accepted as a term of abuse. It is used both by Thatcherites (myself included) when reffering to their own ideolgy and by those who are too blind to see its merits. It may have been used as a derogetary term originally (the very fact it was first used in 'Marxism Today' a clear supporter of that) it no longer carries that effect. It is an ideolgy and like all ideoligies it has its supporters and its opposers. SJHQC (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the proper term for this ideology is Free Market Conservatism. It owes its intellectual genesis William F. Buckley (see his book God and Man at Yale) and, politically, to the late American Senator, and defeated presidential candidate (1964), Barry Goldwater (of Arizona). The late American President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) brought it to political triumph in the US with the greatest electoral victory in the republic's history--forever altering the American presidency and government in the process. The greatest popular expositor of this ideology is Rush Limbaugh--the man who almost singlehandedly created a Conservative media in the United States. Before the latter, the American meda was a complete monopoly of the Left.

Lady Thatcher is the only disciple of American Conservatism to ever run a foreign nation (to my knowledge; I'd love to proven wrong on this one!). Certainly no European head of government/state has ever been a believer in it! In fact, the socialist/communist Continentals still routinely abuse American Conservatism & conservatives (e.g. former French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's idiotic rants about "Anglo-Saxon" economics).

First point: this author couldn't have trumpeted his or her opposition to Conservatism (to reiterate, this is not the John Major/Brian Mulroney tax-and-spend-ism hidden under the guise of conservatism) even more loudly had he or she stooped to oopen mud-slinging. If I understand British protocol at all, Margaret Thatcher should have been referred to her by her proper title--Baroness Thatcher. For example, we refer to the Elder Pitt as such rather than the title he was granted by George III (Lord Chatham) because few, unless deeply conversant with the history of British imperialism, would recognize it, there is no reason not to refer to Baroness Thatcher by her proper title. Especially since most British "Prime Ministers" have been granted earldoms (the term only became official in 1905, heretofore one became head of government by being appointed First Treasury Lord, this being a typical example of British clarity: he who controlled the keys to the coffers, controlled the kingdom) since the first man to bear that title (a term of abuse at the time!), Robert Walpole, was created Earl of Orford by George II.

Second point and most importantly: this subject, without the derogatory heading, is properly handled under a discussion of Free Market Conservatism; not under associated biography.

Given the hatred many Leftists/Liberals still harbor toward Baroness Thatcher, and after my experience of trying to "revert" the article on Win95 with a brief, innocuous summary of the GUI's history, I'm not falling into an edit war over this.

Suffice it to say my opinion is that this article is hostile to both Baroness Thatcher and Free Market Conservatism. After all, we don't write articles about Neil Kinnock's Labor Party under the heading of "Britain's Leninist-Labor Party"--completely accurate though I believe it would be. Nor would an article on Christianity be acceptable if it were placed under the heading of "Tritheism"--a common hate-term used by Muslims to insult Christians.

I certainly agree, opun Thatcher leaving office it has become taboo in British politics to associate yourself with 'Thatcherism' though this was not the case in the 1980s as she won three elections, but anyway, we do not as far as I'm aware have an article relating to Michael Foot's 'Longest Suicide Note in History' or how Labour's socialism was breaking the country but we do have peices on how unemployment increased dramaticly during her tenure and how 27% of British children were living below the poverty line and I ask myself, how ungratful people can be, here we have a woman who revitalised the economy, made Britain a banker to the world and all people can think of 20 yrs later is "Oh, she was a disater!". After reading what I have just pointed out there how can you possibly say she was a disaster, if it wasn't for her the trade unions would have succeded on breaking Britain! SJHQC (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do. The important thing is to put the article where people will find it, right? Although I think some of your POV arguments are valid, I (as a Christian) don't find the tritheism article particularly offensive just because of its name. An article of this name would be a good place to discuss the conflict between progressive and regressive politics in the context of 1980's Great Britain, and if Western Leninism were a catch phrase, I think it would be a good article title, too. There's even an established format for debates, if I'm not mistaken; feel free to add your account of the effects of these policies, and maybe even some right-wing thinkers' suggestions for how the public should rename this political movement if you so desire.
Also, feel free to sign your talk page contributions with three or for tildes, or by hitting the signature button on the toolbar above the editing window.--Joel 23:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
One more closing thought: "Christian" started as a term of abuse also. It's been over a millenium since that was the case, but I would say that the sooner you accept a commonly-used term, the sooner it will lose its utility as a way for your opponents to manipulate your emotions. Is it so wrong that powerful leaders lend their names to the systems of thought that they help establish? Anyone who looks at Christianity will find a link to monotheism; why not add "See also: Free Market Conservatism" to the end of this article?--Joel 00:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Though an admirer of Baroness Thatcher, I frequently link to this article as it is convenient political shorthand in the UK. Like so many terms originally intended as abuse, it has been enthusiastically embraced by its targets. What better than to have an -ism coined? It is a coherent set of ideas.
Thatcher was not a disciple of any US ideas. Her thought starts from Adam Smith, through Richard Cobden to Friedrich Hayek. All about as American as Jacques Chirac. However, her thinking departs from all of them, and from that of your own Barry Goldwater, in that she was a social conservative, rather too much so for my comfort. Social conservatism is a very European thing. Thatcher was appalled by US socialism and opposition to free trade as seen in its protectionism in agriculture that persists under George W. Bush.
That said, this seems like a POV article to me. Take the sentence:
The collapse of Britain's manufacturing base, which many blame on Thatcherism, was partly compensated for by the growth in the service industries.
Now, collapse of ... manufcaturing base, does this mean in terms of value of goods produced or in people employed? It the latter it is undeniably true but the former requires some evidence. I do not believe that the value of goods manufactured in Britain now is less than in 1980 but I will stand corrected if we can see some evidence. If a small decrease would not justify the word collapse. However, given that the UK has higher GDP and higher employment than in 1980, then growth in the service sector must have more than compensated. Have I understood this? Cutler 12:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


Cutler I realize now I should have been clearer. The way I wrote sounds as though (modern) Conservative ideas are only a product of Americans. This is not the case historically and not what I meant to write. Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan and Limbaugh all work from the same source ideas as Baroness Thatcher (e.g. Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, etc). I should have been clearer. At the same time, I don't think we can rule out Lady Thatcher's having been influenced by American conservative thought. Indeed, she put it into action in the UK before Reagan did so in the US (e.g. taking on Big Labor--or "trades unions" as you call them 'cross the pond--by firing the illegal strike by the air traffic controllers). While Lady Thatcher clearly had to give the Elder Bush a fillip of firmness (so to speak) when Iraq invaded Kuwait (her wonderful remark, "Don't go wobbly, George!" stiffened the former President's resolve), this wasn't needed with Ronald Reagan. The Elder Bush, as much as I admire the man, has never really been a Conservative, though moving toward the social conservative position on abortion.

Britain's GDP is clearly much higher today than it was in 1980. You also have the luck to be self-sufficient in oil (of course you're only a sixth of our size and the UK covers an area about the size of the Great Lakes). But by reversing some of the damage done by the welfare state and prying the union thugs' greasy fingers off the economy, the UK now has the strongest economy in Europe. Unlike your "Eurosclerotic" neighbors with permanent 10 and 12% unemployment rates, yours is 6% to our less than 5%. And in the cases of both the US and UK, economists have long known that about 3% of the workforce simply will not (or cannot) work. Being permanently disabled, I understand better than most what its like not to be able to earn a living and being stuck receiving insultingly low disability payments (but hey I see something every month the rest of my generation never will: a Social Security check!). Thus one can safely subtract 3% from the nominal unemployment rate to get the actual one. (Note that this does not work with France, Germany, Canada, etc.) Thus both the US and UK have, in actuality, very low unemployment, high standards of living and the highest labor productivity in the world.

Oh yeah, leaving my signature off was pure absent-mindedness.


Finally...Tritheism. No self-respecting Christian would ever so label himself. The neo-pagan religion of Mormonism is a compound of Masonic rituals, Joseph Smith's imagination and misunderstanding of a number of Christian heresies. Orthodox Christianity (of whatever flavor, Catholic, Protestant, Coptic, Graeco-Russian Orthodoxy) explicitly rejects the idea that the Trinity is "three" Gods. Indeed, the Islamic prophet Muhammad misunderstood the Trinity completely, thinking it consisted of God, Jesus and Mary! So "tritheism" and "tritheism" are not only terms of abuse but ignorance. PainMan 04:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of Free Market Conservatism wouldn't a more fitting title for the philosophy be Right-Wing Neoliberalism? Or maybe a redirect from Right-Wing Neoliberalism at least? Timjohn911 02:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thatcherism as a form of Government[edit]

"This personal approach also became identified with a certain toughness at times such as the Falklands War, the IRA bomb at the Conservative conference and the Miner's Strike."

-- Made links. I'm not able to find a Wikipedia article corresponding to "the IRA bomb at the Conservative conference". Can anybody find the appropriate article? Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 19:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Whoa, that was fast. Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

citations in legacy section[edit]

I've removed them since they don't make much sense. I'd think that anyone who is reasonably politically aware, or has a thorough knowledge of British political culture, would recognise these points. In reference to a "Thatcherite consensus" regarding economics, well why have the Major government's and Blair government's economic policies been virtually identical (OK bar minimum wage, independence for the Bank of England, etc.)? I'd also feel it was fact that the British electorate see few prominent differences between the major parties in terms of policy. Look at the 2005 general election manifestos for each major party and you'd see a great deal of commonality, especially in regards to economic policy and public services. Again, anybody with a decent knowledge of British politics over the past fifteen years should automatically realise such points. They aren't wholly dubious or non-factual, so there is no need for a citation. Lapafrax 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restored both the citation and the citation needed flag.
Unfortunately I think you are getting a little close to original research with your belief that "the British electorate see few prominent differences between the major parties in terms of policy." It is quite probably true, but without any evidence it is just a belief, not a proven fact. However, if it such a widely held belief that people see "few prominent differences" between the major parties, then you should have no trouble finding a source to back up the statement.
Getting back to your removal of the citation, I would have to ask the question "who has referred to the Blair government as 'neo-Thatcherite'?" Even though I know a significant amount about British politics, I have never come across that specific phrase. Besides, this is an encyclopedia for a world wide audience, so it is a little unsafe to assume all readers will have a "thorough knowledge of British political culture". As the citation takes up just a few bytes of storage space, answers the question of who used that phrase and provides the reader a source of additional information, I can see no harm in retaining it. Road Wizard 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you really know a significant amount about British politics? The complaint about few major differences between parties has been a major source of contention amongst voters for a while now. And since this is an encyclopedia, then you would expect the text to be factual without the need for citation. Lapafrax 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you should read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research before continuing this discussion.
Justifying a statement that "the British electorate perceive few apparent differences in policy between the major political parties." needs more than a "feeling" that it is true. Is there any evidence to say how many of the British electorate think this way, if at all? I am well aware that political commentators and smaller parties often cry that there is no difference between the 3 main parties, but without a reliable source to support the statement, we risk the accusation that we are pushing a particular Point of View.
Because this is an encyclopedia we have more reason than most to verify that all we say is factual. Failing to properly cite and check sources is one of the main causes of criticism of Wikipedia in the global media, so the defense that "you would expect the text to be factual" is not really adequate.
If it is too difficult to find a reliable source that can quantify the amount of the electorate that feels this way, we can chose to rephrase the sentence instead. "The big three political parties in UK politics are often accused of having few differences between their policies." would be a good starting point. We could then find a quote on the BBC from a smaller party like Plaid Cymru or the Scottish National Party as an adequate citation for this lesser claim. Road Wizard 21:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Article being used to promote marginal views[edit]

As it stood the previous "dispute over the meaning of the term" section prior to my edit does not conform to wikipedia NPOV. Not only is Thatcher's (and T.E. Utley's) conception of the "English political tradition" directly quoted as an apparent truth without qualification, but a very marginal and eccentric interpretation of any tory scepticism towards Thatcherism ( that it was 'ethnically motivated') is referenced as a supposedly mainstream view. On top of that Utley has much lesser status as an academic authority on this period than Cowling . If that keeps getting re-added, it wouldn't be unreasonable to request a temporary lock until this is resolved.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ltr676.b (talkcontribs) 09:24, June 15, 2007.

Thatcher is not quoted, as you claim, it is Utley being quoted. The article states that "Utley contended..." i.e. it is Utley's view, not being stated as fact by Wikipedia but correctly making it clear it is Utley's opinion. It is obvious from your comments and from your actions that you have neither read the source nor understand what Utley is saying, and want to remove his arguments because you disagree with him. Utley got a double-first from Cambridge and has written extensively on conservatism, he has as much authority to be cited as Cowling.--Johnbull 16:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that getting a double first from Cambridge dosen't qualify you as an authority automatically in something you haven't studied or ressearched as an academic in depth.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thatcherites Category[edit]

Maybe someone could create Category:British Thatcherites

Why? Whats the difference between Thatcherites and Reaganists (very little) meaning that Reaganism is the US equivelant to Thatcherism a bit like the US 'color' and UK 'colour'SJHQC (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Thatcher was unusual among late twentieth century British Conservative Prime Ministers"[edit]

This is a very peculiar phrase - there were only 2 late twentieth century British Conservative Prime Ministers (Heath left office in 1974, so was really a mid-twentieth century British Conservative Prime Minister) so it would be hard not to be unusual in a group of 2! Rachel Pearce 09:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition and citation[edit]

I replaced the definition in the lead section with the new one as I think it pretty much sums up what the previous definition was saying, but now has a proper citation for it. Hope nobody objects to the definition. - Chrism would like to hear from you 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

==She Robbed the Rich to give to the Poor== bullshit...

I have removed "transferral of tax burden from the rich to the poor" from the supposed definition of Thatcherism as despite the supposed citations it is a clear nonsense.James.robinson (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, to say that Thatcher transferred the tax burden from rich is utter nonsense from someone who clearly does not know what they are on about SJHQC (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


You can't just remove sourced and accurate statements from wikipedia because you disagree with them... that isn't how wikipedia works. As long as a statement is properly sourced and is not a fringe viewpoint (whatever you may say... this view is not a fringe viewpoint)... it warrents an inclusion in the article. That is wikipedia policy... if you disagree with it you shouldn't be editing wikipedia.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that the lowering of income tax whilst putting forward poll-tax was desgined to transfer tax burden from the rich to the poor?--86.138.113.101 (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand the previous "rates" tax regime was on a per-property basis while the poll tax was on a per-person basis. Because you are more likely to find lower income families sharing accommodation that means there would have been a disproportionate rise in the tax burden for the poor. For example, a rich person who lived alone before poll tax paid once for the property and after poll tax again paid once for one adult; a three-generation family living in one house would have paid once (for one property) before poll tax but after poll tax may have paid four or more times (once for each adult in the property).
As a second factor, rates varied depending on the value of the property. A rich person in a big house would have paid more than a poor person in a small house. Once poll tax came in they were all paying the same amount per-head. Therefore the rich person went from paying high taxes to average taxes and the poor person went from low taxes to average taxes.
Now, our article on poll tax I linked to above mentions discounts for poor people, but the level of discount and the definition of poor is unclear. However it is clear that the tax burden shifted to lower earners, so I can't agree with your assessment of transferring the burden to the rich. Road Wizard (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a statement of fact that the tax burden shifted to the rich during the Thatcher era. The share of total taxes paid by the top 1% increased from 11% in 1979 to 15% in 1990, and continuing up to 24% in 2010 (the respective numbers for the top 10% are 35%, 42%, 54%). Bastin 07:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The rates on the rich were lowered drastically, however. The reason why the rich paid a larger share in 1990 is that they made a substantially larger portion of the total income. As noted in the artice, the Gini coefficient rose from 0.25 to 0.34 under Conservative rule. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No source for this[edit]

This statement is unsupported: 'Thatcher came to power after the crisis of Keynesianism in the mid-1970s, which was largely blamed on the post-1945 welfare state and over-mighty trade unions. Thatcherism thus claimed that a smaller state, free markets and weaker trade unions could be considered the cure for Britain's economic decline.'

it is also not NPOV in that it (rightly or wrongly) promotes the POV that there actually were 'over-mighty' trade-unions (I agree with that btw... it's just not neutral to state that without reference to a source). As it is described in the present tense it also seems to suggest that Britain has undergone economic decline since the 1970's... even during Thatcher's years!

I am therefore removing that part of the lead until it is properly sourced and NPOV. 86.138.113.101 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally the statement refers to a 'crisis of Keynesianism'... that phrase dosen't seem well-defined and also seems like original research (without a source)... it is contentious whether Keynsian economics itself failed or merely the economic policies of Labour governments (and even that is debated by some).--86.138.113.101 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section needs expansion[edit]

The current section on criticism needs massive expansion. It mentions only one substantive view - that of the gap between rich and poor increasing. There are also no criticisms from the right (cf. Peter Hitchens [2]. I propose the section be split in two: 'criticisms from the left' and 'critcisms from the right'. That is, assuming the people who edit this page do not have some ideological agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordi22 (talkcontribs) 18:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

WTF is this?[edit]

This page sounds like a fricken propaganda piece.

Britain suffered two recessions under Thatcher, 1980-82 and 1990-92. (Thatcher had about as much knowledge about economics as Sarah Palin. Thatcher was considered highly ambitious by the Tory elite, but not particularly bright) Not mentioning the recessions on a page on Thatcherism is like not mentioning Germany on a page on WWII. It is just not serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources, please, my friend. Reliable critics discussing the above would be great - then we could discuss the best way to include the information. Huffing and puffing won't help us improve the page for readers. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
As conjective as it sounds, I'm not sure if the page could use some information from Early 1980s recession to help collaborate with the talk of unemployment. It seems like the page talks about Thatcher being the sole reason for the extreme unemployment rates (up to 3,000,000 by 1984-ish), irrespective of the ongoing worldwide recession at the time. --Seraviction (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

LMFAO. "Britain suffered two recessions under Thatcher, 1980-82 and 1990-92. (Thatcher had about as much knowledge about economics as Sarah Palin. Thatcher was considered highly ambitious by the Tory elite" - One recession? Thatcher was not the Prime Minister of Britain from 1990-1992, whoever wrote this as A DUMB ASS . One recession yet the revitalization of the UK economy? Where there is state subsied steel works, may we bring prosperous business parks, where this is state subsised coal mines, may bring banking, where there is decimated shipyards with no world markets, may we bring financial services, and where there is industry who cannot pay it's way without government aid, may we bring new industry. Get a grip, THATCHER ROCKED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.35.11 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Post-Thatcher Thatcherism in the lead[edit]

The lead has the following sentence: "and beyond into the governments of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron.[1]" The source is Jenkins, Simon (2006). Thatcher & Sons: A Revolution in Three Acts.

How can a 2006 source be used for a claim on Thatcherism for Gordon Brown and David Cameron? --Pudeo' 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Industrial production fell sharply during Thatcher's government[edit]

This statement, conveniently unsourced, under the section Criticism, is patent nonsense and nothing but a myth perpetuated by the left and should be removed immediately. According to the ONS, under Thatcher industrial output increased in real terms by 7.5% (inspite of all the industrial disputes), and a further 4.9% under John Major, while it was under the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that industry imploded, declining some 5%. http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/blame-margaret-thatcher-todays-problems-174519607.html?cmp=fb--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thatcherism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thatcherism attempts/claims to promote low inflation[edit]

Thought we should discuss on the talk page, there has been disagreement about whether it should be Thatcherism attempts to promote low inflation or Thatcherism claims to promote low inflation.

To me the difference is that the first implies that it is definitely trying to promote it (no matter if it succeeds or not) whereas the second implies that they said publicly that they wanted to promote it, but secretly didn't. As there are plenty of sources that say that Thatcherism included trying to control inflation, I haven't seen any sources that say that actually the govt didn't want to have low inflation. If you have some sources which say that then it would be different but otherwise I think that attempt is the best choice. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

100% agree --Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

These primary sources of information might be of interest:

They include interviews with some of the main people who worked with Margaret Thatcher, and they provide an insight into the key themes and events of her premiership. 80.43.188.204 (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

There is a section on criticism, but there is also criticism of Thatcherism throughout the article. Notably there appears to be no compliments for Thatcherism.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this may be cause for concern. Have you any ideas on how to rectify this apparent problem, Royalcourtier?--Nevéselbert 16:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The criticism should be consolidated into one section. But there should first some positive comments included under legacy. Otherwise the article is clearly one-sided.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel inclined to agree, but I would also strongly recommend you be wp:bold in copy-editing what you see fit. Good luck.--Nevéselbert 14:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I added some positive commentary on individualism, by scholars, Rjensen (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)