Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 12

Manual of Style issues
Whilst folks are trying to sort out the other issues, could we all make an effort to sort out compliance with WP:MOS at the same time. I think I've jsut got everything using double-quotes consistently, as mandated by WP:MOSQUOTE, but really all the quotes need to be checked for their use fo logical punctuation, ie punctuation should only be included inside a quotation of it's included in the source. There's also a mish-mash of referencing styles. Most thnigs seem to use cite news, cite web etc, but there are quite a few which don'tuse the templates, this should also be consistent. If using cite news, newspaper names should be given under the "work" parameter, not publisher. David Underdown (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"But you are no Margaret Thatcher"
"William Hague attacked this decision, saying to Brown, 'You may fawn now at the feet of our greatest prime minister – but you are no Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher would never have devastated the pension funds of this nation, nor kicked its small businesses in the teeth."

There is a "hidden" link behind "you are no Margaret Thatcher" that is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you're_no_Jack_Kennedy

and also relevant, perhaps; but I think it breaks with this guidelines:

Intuitiveness.

WP:EGG Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use them to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them to understand the term. Wikipedia's articles are sometimes read in hard copy, where the option of following a link is not available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Piped_links

When I first read that part of the article the link did seem a bit too easter egg-y...

There also needs to be an extra quotation mark in here:

"William Hague attacked this decision, saying to Brown, 'You may fawn now at the feet of our greatest prime minister – but you are no Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher would never have devastated the pension funds of this nation, nor kicked its small businesses in the teeth. We, Gordon, backed her when she rescued our country in the face of every denunciation and insult from the likes of you.[188] Brown's spokesman insisted that the meeting was 'not unusual', that it was customary for Prime Ministers to invite their predecessors to tea and that Mr Brown would be 'happy' to meet any former Prime Minister.[189]"

Probably after "the likes of you", before [188].

G. 117.92.155.217 (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the missing quotation mark. The passage is quite long already. It might be easier to reference Lloyd Bentsen in a footnote. Lachrie (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether or not he needs to be mentioned, but the way he is alluded to via that link seems contrary to the spirit of piped links, at least as explained in Wikipedia's guidelines. G. 117.92.155.217 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprecedented third term?
... she was re-elected for an unprecedented third term in 1987 (from the lede).

In what sense was this unprecedented? Lord Salisbury certainly had 3 consecutive terms. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked him up on wikipedia and there was a gap from 1892-1895 when someone else was P.M, so his terms weren't consecutive.Sayerslle (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So it could really do with saying " ...for an unprecedented consecutive third term in 1987"Willski72 (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But Tony Blair was elected three times consecutively,, so maybe '..for an unprecedented, at the time, consecutive third term in 1987.' But I don't know if that's true, it probably is. Sayerslle (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes thats true, this sentence could get really long and confusing!Willski72 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it's in the past tense, future events don't matter, so the existing text is fine as it is. Lachrie (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anglican
It may not be right to label Thatcher a Methodist in the information box. She reportedly attends the Church of England. She seems to have become a practising Anglican after marrying Denis.

An AP report from 1988 describes her as: "Mrs. Thatcher, an Anglican who grew up under the strict Methodism of her father ..." Source: Maureen Johnson, "Bible-Quoting Thatcher Stirs Furious Debate", The Associated Press (28 May 1988).

In her memoir Path to Power, p. 105, Thatcher writes: "On Sundays we took the twins to the Family Service at the Farnborough parish church. Denis was an Anglican, but we both felt that it would be confusing for the children if we did not attend the same church. The fact that our local church was Low Church made it easier for the Methodist in me to make the transition. Anyway, John Wesley regarded himself as a member of the Church of England to his dying day. I did not feel that any great theological divide had been crossed." Lachrie (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculously biased article
Largely relevant to the above sections, this article is a disgraceful hagiography that fails WP:NPOV by a considerable margin. It is that bad I do not even have the energy to make a full list, but I'm sure these (including various factual errors that in some cases add to the bias) will do for starters to justify the addition of a tag and other editors already involved will hopefully be happy to pitch in:
 * Northern Ireland section. The first sentence is completely inaccurate, the prisoners did not go on hunger strike to regain the status of political prisoners. Initially the protest began in 1976 seeking the return of political status, but the "Five Demands" were issued by the prisoners as a way for the government to save face, if they did not want to say the prisoners were "political prisoners" they could simply grant the demands and both sides would have saved face. Thus it follows that the last sentence of that paragraph is incorrect and also biased, as by 1983 all of the "Five Demands" had been conceded, which was what the prisoners went on strike for. There is no mention of the Republican Movement's view of Thatcher, there is no mention of her becoming a hate figure in Northern Ireland, there is no mention of her stance during the strike ultimately benefiting the Republican Movement, there is no mention of significant world opinion being critical of Thatcher's handling of the strike, there's no mention of British political figures saying with hindsight the strike was badly managed, it's an absolute disgrace. Now for the Anglo-Irish agreement paragraph, which merely says it happened. No mention of the Unionist community feeling betrayed by the British government, and Thatcher becoming a focus of particular rage including effigies of her being burned? No mention of widespread rioting by loyalists in protest at the agreement? It seems to me anything remotely negative has been left out!
 * Falklands section. The sentence of "Victory brought a wave of patriotic enthusiasm and support for the government" is not sourced by the Encarta article, which I personally consider a wholly unreliable source considering it claims the Brighton bombing was done by an IRA "splinter group"! Considering the number of academic works that have been written about Thatcher, I do not know why a tertiary source (and not just that one, Britannica is also cited copiously) containing inaccuracies with no cited sources is being used at all? Convenience perhaps?
 * 1983 Election section. Despite the source using the highly point-of-view term "massive" there is no need for this article to use it when the precise figure is known and indeed is in the sentence right after it, and splitting that into two sentences is appalling prose as well by the way. The only possible reason for the inclusion of that term is if you were writing a hagiography, which is why it's there right now it seems.... The selective omission of facts is inherently biased, it's easy to paint Thatcher as popular by only mentioning the increased majority, however if you mention other key facts like the total Tory vote going down, the total Tory percentage of the vote going down, Thatcher's vote in her own constituency going down, Labour losing vast amounts of ground to the SDP/Liberal Alliance it paints a rather different picture doesn't it? And there's also no need to hammer home the increased majority yet again in the next sentence in the article, which is in the "Economic developments" section.
 * Trade unions section. If I had to write a five sentence summary of the Miners' Strike, I would not include the death of David Wilkie, certainly not while excluding the deaths of nine (yes, NINE!) other people during the strike. However if you're indending to have a "Saintly Maggie vs murdering miners" style summary I suppose it works quite well. I'm not surprised there's no mention of how Thatcher is seen in mining communities, it's "virtually impossible to convey to outsiders just how much Thatcher is hated in the former mining communities" for the record.
 * Cold War section. "She modernised the British naval fleet with Trident II nuclear submarines", she did? Personally? She may have planned to, but that's hardly an accurate statement at present is it? And I say "planned to", as Trident II wasn't operational in the Royal Navy until the mid-1990s, several years after Thatcher left office. No mention of the £9 billion price tag, or is her extravagant spending on defence while simultaneously raping our national industries not being mentioned? Also why is a CNN article of unknown authorship (which is also a dead link by the way) being cited when the Trident deal has been covered by sources that are far more reliable and authoritative? The bombing of Libya has absolutely no mention of the widespread criticism Thatcher faced, most of which is even covered in her own autobiography, The Downing Street years, on page 447! "In July 1986, Thatcher expressed her belief that economic sanctions against South Africa would be immoral because they would make thousands of black workers unemployed", why is there absolutely zero mention of the criticism of her policies regarding South Africa, including her standing alone against the Commonwealth on this issue? Why is there no mention of the Queen being 'dismayed' by 'an uncaring Prime Minister' and disapproving of several major policies?
 * Resignation section. "Thatcher said that pressure from her colleagues helped her to conclude that the unity of the Conservative Party and the prospect of victory in the next general election would be more likely if she resigned" is certainly an interesting take on things, unsurprisingly in this hagiography her resignation is described in Thatcher's very own couched terms. What do other people say? The Times say "forced from office". Rhodes Boyson says "forced from office". The Telegraph say "forced from office". The Guardian say "forced from office". The BBC say "forced from office" (and the second link notes that she's the only post-war PM to be forced from office!). And just to be thorough, there's plenty of uses of the phrase on Google Books and Google Scholar. Need I go on?
 * Lead and legacy sections. The lead is bereft of absolutely any negative information, and the legacy section isn't much better relying on a few sentences blatantly plagiarised from the BBC . Even the Margaret Thatcher Foundation have no qualms about calling her "one of the most controversial" and "an intensely controversial figure in Britain", but the lead is even more hagiographical than the rest of the article, if that's possible!

Before anyone asks, I'm not going to assume good faith. I looked at events I'm most informed about (thus this should not be seen as a full list), and I saw a systematic omission of negative information. With a figure as controversial as Thatcher (not that you'd know she was controversial reading this hagiography!) that can only be deliberate. The bias in this article runs deep and throughout. I find the comments of "In addition, this article recently went through a copyedit overhaul with the sole intent of making it "more neutral." It is currently a good article, meaning that it was determined that the article adheres to the standards of WP:NPOV" from the main architect of this hagiography to be comical. How, pray tell, would copyediting improve the neutrality of an article where negative information has been systematically left out, since copyediting would not involve adding it? The "review" was cursory at best, and simply because good articles should meet WP:NPOV doesn't automatically mean this one does. As this delisting review shows even recently promoted good articles can have major problems, and the good article procedure relies on the capability of the reviewer. Unless this hagiography is significantly improved in the very near future I'm taking this to GAR. 2 lines of K 303  12:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please just go ahead and make changes you think would improve balance in the article, preferably without insulting other editors. Lachrie (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of your points are good ones, and the article should be improved. WHy not just get on and do it rather than throwing around invective?  -- Snowded  TALK  15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he raised the issues as a point of order to ensure acknowledgement of the issue and support for the changes. Which in my opinion he has (from me anyway).--Vintagekits (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That can be done without attacking other editors. David Underdown (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who exactly is he attacking?--Vintagekits (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By implication of "I'm not going to assume good faith" everyone else who has ever edited this article, as well as breaking fundamental Wikipedia tenets. David Underdown (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Cry me a bloody river. It's pathetic you think someone not assuming good faith on an article talk page is a worse crime than this article which fails a non-negotiable Wikimedia Foundation level policy by miles. So why don't you stop droning on about me and address the really important issues? 2 lines of K  303  11:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, jsut trying to point out that by expressing youself in such a way you put the backs up of people who might otherwise by sympathetic to what your saying. You made good pionts, and then tossed in a pointless attack that didn't advance your case at all.  David Underdown (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mostly good, but it must be made sure that there is no bias the other way. For example if "raping our national industry" isnt biased i dont know what is. Also all independent research has shown that only David Wilkie died in the Miner's Strike, so to say that 9 others died needs a lot of sources.Willski72 (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just re-write the offending parts ONiH. Most of us here agree the article has gone from bad to worse over the past two years. Theres bound to be a certain amount of contention with your new text but I can't see there being too much if you stick to the area's mentioned above. -  Gallo glass  16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "controversial" already appears five times in the article. The article has problems; most obviously, some of the difficult issues only receive cursory treatment. To call it a hagiography is an exaggeration. Balance can't be used to justify giving minority perspectives equal space, and some points of contention are the purview of specialists and can be dealt with in greater detail in the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, where several of the economic aspects, for instance, have been given a little more depth. Lachrie (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 lines of K 's critique is far more balanced than this article. This has been a long time coming. I will support any changes along the lines noted above. Daicaregos (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that after reading such a critique, the reader might be left in some doubt as to how such a monster ever got elected. It comes across as a bit jaundiced and hysterical. The article reflects the fact that even controversial policies weren't entirely devoid of public support. It's also written more from a national rather than a provincial perspective, and while it has some omissions, e.g. Grenada, opposition the Libya bombing, the Commonwealth etc., some of the complaints do seem to reflect a fairly superficial reading, while the inclusion or elaboration of others may be hard to justify in a biographical article. Lachrie (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is time that some of the main editors of this article took a step back to allow other editors to contribute, such as 2 lines of K . The consensus here is that the article is WP:POV towards Margaret Thatcher. It's time the balance was redressed. Daicaregos (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if people have something specific to contribute to the article they should actually do so, rather than making vague insinuations about the contributions of others. Lachrie (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you aren't too keen on 'vague insinuations', how about this: This article is a disgrace. I had a look at it a month or so ago and was appalled. Sadly, I had neither the time nor the energy to attempt the complete overhaul this article so desperately needs. And, quite frankly, had no idea where to start. Your statement that the article is written 'from a national rather than a provincial perspective' is patronising (at best), and is completely irrelevant anyway. You note that 'The word "controversial" already appears five times in the article.' Do you really believe that makes it WP:NPOV? This may be a case of WP:OWN. Please step back and allow other editors a chance to balance this article. 2 lines of K  has my support. Daicaregos (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is very uneven, which is why I'm making improvements to it, and encourage others to do so. But so far the sound and fury don't signify very much. The criticism is over the top and seems politically motivated. We have to keep in mind that traditional critiques of Thatcherism often reflect sectional or regional perspectives. Your own negativity here isn't very constructive. Perhaps you should take a step back. Lachrie (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Daicaregos and Lachrie i see were you're both coming from. To Lachrie i suggest you let them put stuff in and see what it looks like, it can always be reverted if necessary (which hopefully it wont be). To Daicaregos i repeat what i wrote above, if "raping our national industry" etc is put in it will get deleted, regardless of whether its your personal point of view.Willski72 (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those were not my words. Please do not suggest that I have an agenda to insert POV phrases into this article, when what I am striving for is balance. Daicaregos (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologise Daicaregos i meant to include One Night in Hackney with you (on your side of the divide so to speak). Therefore many of the things i said were really to and for One Night in Hackney. My fault entirely.Willski72 (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, Willski72. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to various points...


 * The only possible thing I can see that could be construed as an insult is "main architect of this hagiography", which for me is mild at best. Everything else I have written is about the content, so for editors to try and sidetrack this discussion isn't very helpful.


 * I notice Willski72 makes the bold (and incorrect) unsourced statement that all independent research has confirmed only Paul Wilkie died during the Miners Strike, while saying I need sources to prove ten people died. I'm missing one name (one source gives a total of nine, so that might be the figure...), but Paul and Darren Holmes died digging for coal, Paul Womersley died digging for coal, Joe Green and David Jones died while picketing, Jimmy Jones, Terry Leaves and Mike Rice died in various ways, source for ten deaths in total. The independent research seems to have come up a bit short, but there's no need to apologise. Furthermore the information on David Wilkie didn't even accurately reflect what the BBC source says. Yes, two men were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. However this article neglects to mention what the BBC also says, which is that the convictions were reduced to manslaughter on appeal and the sentences reduced to eight years. It's little things like that which don't give me much faith in the GA reviewer, thus this article shouldn't be assumed to be neutral because it passed the review.


 * I could have just made the changes I initially detailed above, but that's ignoring the bigger issues surely? Drive-by tagging is discouraged, in fact if there's a POV template placed without any substantive reasoning on the talk page it should be removed. So I post a semi-detailed reasoning on here, and everyone is saying "just make the changes". Well if I had time I would, but that's still ignoring the bigger issues. Happyme22 (who seems to be the main author of this version) seems to be in denial believing that if an article is a good article it has to be neutral, and dismissed a previous complaint about neutrality on that basis. The complaint wasn't particularly precise on which parts of the article aren't neutral, so I decide to post some examples. I say examples as I hope they demonstrate the bias that is in this article, and make editors realise there may well be similar problems in the rest of the article. As I lack the time to investigate this thoroughly (as I'm busy doing some research for three articles I want to get to FA) I specifically asked for other editors to help identify other problems in the article. Take the resignation for example, where Thatcher's view is given (as it should be, given it was effectively her resignation speech) but the prevailing view from other sources is omitted. Now if this happens in relation to other events, you're looked at an unduly slanted article you would agree? So can anyone see any other significant problems that can be dealt with at the same time, as I was kind of hoping we could identify other areas in need of attention?


 * At no time did I suggest the phrase "raping our national industry" should be added to the article.


 * I'll go in depth about why I'm unhappy about some information being removed. The Unionist (and Loyalist) reaction to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was described as a viewpoint (and quite an insignificant one at that it seems) and removed. While rioting may in fact be a de facto national sport in Northern Ireland, it is extremely unusual for Loyalist rioting to occur based on something a Conservative Prime Minister has done, as the Conservatives are traditionally very pro-Union. It is even more unusual for effigies of a Conservative Prime Minister to be burned by Loyalists. It is just as unusual for 100,000-200,000 people (considering the population of Northern Ireland at the time was about 1,500,000 and about 40% of those were Catholics unlikely to be attending, you're looking at 1 in 9 people out of the entire Protestant population of Northern Ireland attending just going by the bottom estimate) to gather at an Ulster Says No rally protesting against something a Conservative Prime Minister has done. Taken together, this really does mean that the reaction to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is slightly more than a "viewpoint", it wasn't just a few angry Unionist politicans being unhappy and getting their names in the paper. For more information on all this see the CAIN chronology of the AIA.


 * Don't even get me started on Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. In relation to the hunger strike "Thatcher later asserted, 'The outcome was a significant defeat for the IRA.' ", oh my dear lord. While Thatcher's viewpoint is important, most if not all secondary sources state the long terms gains were in fact made by the IRA and broader Republican Movement, considering it a Pyrrhic victory for Thatcher. I'll be fixing that myself later. But back on topic, while that article should cover things in greater detail, the guidelines about content forking and summary style come into play. Thus the claim that "the inclusion or elaboration of others seems hard to justify in a biographical article" is a false one. Any event covered in this article and in greater detail in the "Premiership..." article must have a neutral summary of the greater detail, you can't hide all criticism away in another article otherwise it becomes a POV fork. You say some of the complaints reflect a fairly superficial reading, oh come on! Rather than fall into the trap that the previous complainants made, I made specific points about specific events, if you're going to accuse me of a "fairly superficial reading" at least be specific about which points you are talking about. Could you please explain what you mean by a national rather than a provincial perspective? I believe I know what you are hinting at, but wanted to check before replying to that point.


 * The article uses "controversial" five times, but did you actually look at the context? The first is in relation to police tactics during the Miners' Strike, and therefore indirectly related to Thatcher at best. The second one is in relation to the abolition of the GLC and six Labour controlled councils, but virtually every politican in a position of power has put controversial plans into place at one time or another. The third is in relation to chapters in a book she had written. The fourth is using controversial in a direct manner to her admittedly, and the fifth is in relation to her being given a state funeral. My point remains that if the Margaret Thatcher Foundation (of all people!) are honest enough to call her "one of the most controversial" and "an intensely controversial figure in Britain" then we should also, especially in the lead (not necessarily that wording, but something that covers it). The broader point is not necessarily adding in as many controversial incidents as possible (although anything covered should be done neutrally, which hasn't happened at times), but that on the whole Thatcher is seen as a controversial figure.


 * As for the question on how such a "monster" (your words, not mine!) got elected in the first place, it didn't really matter who was leading the Tories as Labour were heading for defeat in the general election following the Winter of Discontent and the 1979 vote of no confidence against the government of James Callaghan. How she stayed in office is generally due to the splits in Labour and their unfortunate habit of picking unelectable people such as Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock as leaders. While Thatcher may have her faults there is little doubt she acted statesmanlike (I refuse to use the term stateswomanlike out of principle) whereas you really can't imagine a nondescript, scruffy looking man like Michael Foot meeting the American president at the White House can you? Politican he was, statesman he wasn't.


 * And largely unrelated to the comments above, but touched upon in my initial comments and also mentioned in the peer review that was done. Considering the number of books about Thatcher there are, I also find the sourcing in this article somewhat sub-par. With that many books available, this article shouldn't be relying on tertiary sources, brief BBC reports years after the event, CNN profiles etc etc. I'd even prefer book sources to be used over the contemporary news reports that are frequently used as well (excepting more recent events obviously, such as her declining health etc). 2 lines of K  303  10:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for dispelling my concerns. I have now only one problem, of those ten that died, 3 died digging for coal. You may have to explain to me what that had to do with the strike other than job relation. The fact that they were working means they were not part of the strike surely? This is not criticism it just needs clearing up.Willski72 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From memory, and after checking the first ref given above, those killed "digging for coal" were usually raltives of miners trying to find a few scraps of coal, either for fuel since little money was coming in, or to sell locally, rather than being killed mining as such. David Underdown (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, if thats the case then its linked enough with the strike for me!Willski72 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The tone of much of this supposed criticism falls far short of dispassionate, which honestly doesn't inspire much confidence. Some of the cheer squad sound like they'd be happy to turn the article into an attack page. I'm not going to go through the whole shopping list of random niggles about topics like Northern Ireland. The relevance of some for an article of reasonable length seems quite tenuous and can be more efficiently dealt with in specific edits. Labelling a public figure controversial isn't very helpful. Clement Attlee is a secular saint to modern historians in the universities but his policies were also polarising and controversial in his day. Controversy is the province of controversialists and can't be understood except in relation to the primary factual content. There should be less emphasis on marginal framing—which too readily lends itself to spin and polemic—than on the factual content in the lead and the rest of the article. Yesterday the article had a single sentence on Libya, another on Trident, and another on South Africa, and still I think has nothing on Grenada. That the Tories faced a divided opposition is mentioned repeatedly. Obviously the article needs to be rationalised. Parts are poorly written. What we really need are verifiable facts, especially economic and spending data. The analysis of the effects of policy needs to be much more systematic. Contemporary news reports often contain more solid facts and a more balanced treatment of specific problems than meandering retrospectives. Some sections need to be expanded while others need to be summarised and hived off. Frankly, it does seem a bit premature to be banging on about criticism and analysis of specific policies when we're still assembling the bare bones of a factual narrative. Lachrie (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There are still glaring omissions and shortcomings in the article, without adding to them through excessive cutting, as attempted in the lead. We need something on Grenada, more coverage of the return of the Treasury’s policy hegemony and the landmark emphasis on control of inflation at the expense of employment in monetarist partial reversal of post-war bastardised Keynesianism, the relaxation of exchange controls, the Big Bang, the Lawson credit boom, and statistics (and, even better, a graph) on the supposed equality/efficiency trade off and rising prosperity creating an income gap. Nott's defence review and force reconfiguration, Carrington's resignation, and the early increase and later decrease in national defence expenditures. All important events and themes of the Thatcher government. It would be good if people could make more constructive contributions on these lines. Lachrie (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has so many problems, I think it needs to be cut  and left almost bare bones, because almost any elaboration ,however well intentioned, tends to reveal itself as ideologically partisan. My solution would be to simplify, cut, cut and cut again and leave it to articles veering off from the main biographical subject to deal with complexities. If Thatcher says 'I'm for freedom, individual liberty, entrepreneurship, democracy' you don't just write like a complete idiot 'Thatcher was a defender of individual liberty, freedom, entrepreneurship, democracy - we can't understand Thatcher unless we understand her devotion to these things.' Blimey. And she said she was sad when Pinochet died, which I didn't know she'd said til I read the wikipedia article. Must have seen in him a fellow lover of liberty. Touching, aint it? The article is worthless as it stands. Sayerslle (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unspecific suggestions to "cut, cut, and cut again" do not help us here in the middle of an intense debate about the overall POV of a highly trafficked article. If you have specific suggestions regarding content, please feel free to list them here. But while many at this article are trying to engage others who have brought concerns regarding NPOV to the table and reach solutions, preaching to us about how the article is "worthless" doesn't help at all. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lazy editorialising is the bane of Wikipedia. People should be adding to the factual content rather than taking from it. Describing Thatcher’s ideology isn’t the same thing as endorsing it. The existing content of the article is actually reasonably balanced, which each section giving some context for political decisions (including opinion polls) and at least alluding to opposition criticism. In some cases maintaining a semblance of balance has required going into a painstaking level of detail. Excessive cutting makes things worse rather than better. The main shortcomings of the article are its omissions. But, if anything, too much space has been given to the long-term decline of northern manufacturing at the expense of the growth in services in the south. This imbalance in coverage reflects the regional and sectoral bias common to Thatcher criticism. We also need more on the oil revenue debate.Lachrie (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[arbitrary break for editing ease]
One very specific little thing then. 'Thatcher was brought up a devout Methodist and has remained a Christian throughout her life.' And this is supported by a link to a few words she spoke at some meeting of Calvinists in Scotland in 1988.. - the sentence could be cut this way ; 'Thatcher was brought up a Methodist but Christianity  proved  no sort of guiding thread in her life.' Remember in Matthew when Jesus said 'You have heard 'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth' but I say do not resist evil'..and 'go and sell your possessions and give to the poor and follow me.' etc But Thatcher said we should resist, and arm ourselves to the teeth, and hate our enemies, and was careful to  marry a rich businessman who becme a richer executive in the oil industry before preaching to the poor about good housekeeping..So that one sentence..if I cut it to ' Thatcher was brought up a Methodist - though Christianity played no shaping role of her beliefs and practices.' will that survive. No, so it's not worth writing - but the article is right wing biased to a crippling degree in my opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you locate yourself on the left of the political spectrum your subjective perception of bias is going to be different from those at the centre or on the right, and all you're doing is confirming your own ideological position. I agree the adjective "devout" is problematic. A subject's internal life can't be independently verified, so including it means taking Thatcher at her own evaluation, which the most strident opponents would be loath to do, even on such an intimate matter, although it does seem rather petty to be denying the sincerity of her private religious convictions when these can never be amenable to objective scientific proof. There is a well-established historical intersection between Protestant Nonconformity and classical liberalism, and a form of Christianity was integral to the "Victorian values" Thatcher said she wished to revive. Obviously you can't impose your own personal interpretation of Christianity on the article, by inserting overtly judgmental statements based on your own selective - and inherently contestable - reading of scripture. Lachrie (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'resist not evil' only has to be taken away to a Protestant laboratory and de-fused and 'interpreted' by people who have no intention of letting a small thing like the words of Jesus get in the way of their 'Christianity'. Thatcher was not religious, and she's only of interest because of her politics so the sentence 'she remained a Christian all her life' is there because it looks nice to a certain sort of right-wing propagandist, the subliminal building up of the text is..this is a religious woman, a strong woman, a principled woman, etc' I could live with the sentence 'Thatcher was brought up a Methodist.' Then, move on. You can't see into anothers soul but you can see what they do. The whole article takes Thatcher at her own estimation, 'describing Thatchers ideology is not endorsing it' but the article kind of describes Thatchers ideology in the words Thatcher herself used to describe her  ideology, uncritically. Sayerslle (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article discusses negative consequences of Thatcher's policies and contains many sourced criticisms of Thatcher. The ideology is described in conventional terms. It may not be possible completely to factor out evaluative elements from descriptive elements in any description of values. That's a complex philosophical problem. It's up to you to propose an alternative wording that does the job better. Wholesale deletion of the relevant passages is obviously much less informative. Thatcherism and the New Right have their own articles where more detailed accounts can be fully developed. No serious commentator on the subject disputes that there are important points of intersection between religion and politics. But Christianity is too diverse to be monopolised by any one denomination or comprehended within a single harmonious system of values. Claims of universality by one sect are invariably contested by others. A biographical article isn't a platform for you to propagate your personal dogmas. Lachrie (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

'Resist not evil' is not my personal dogma, its in the Catholic bible, i dunno whats in the Protestant one. I dont agree with it, i'd have fought like crazy when the Protestant vandals desecrated the Catholic churches, and smashed the stained glass , the morons.In the lede what I hate are the lines from 'Thatcher entered ..determined to reverse economic decline..up to the point where we get to her early unpopularity. Those three sentences or so. What I think should replace it are direct quotes from the '79 manifesto for each of the major headings, like ' She was elected in 79 on the back of a manifesto that wanted a..b...c... and then verify those statements with quotes and page numbers from the manifesto. As it stands it reads dead right wing...she wanted to reverse the decline..freedom..entrepreneurs.. sounds great but it's just waffle verify it..free markets..great, but have free markets ever existed, since everything in the real world is underlined in the economies of the world by violence, the threat of violence ,the use of power by the rich to impose their terms and conditions..I'd keep it very specific and not whirl off into philosophical abstractions, more quotes, a few well chosen statistics, less daily mail style sucking up to the woman. Sayerslle (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Id be careful with the Protestant bashing, we could always talk about the time the Catholic church had 3 Popes at the same time, and when Pope's had illegitamite children and Mistresses, oh and that one time when a woman posed as Pope for about a decade before being found out and burnt at the stake, "the morons".Willski72 (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

PS, i would have resisted like crazy when the Catholic Church decided to burn me and my friends alive and torture them in terrible ways for being Protestant/Jewish/Muslim in the Inquisition, the morons.Willski72 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember that the lead is intended as an overview of the article. I'm no fan of Thatcher, but it seems a reasonable summary of the major themes of her premiership.  By necessity it is a simple round-up, we can argue about the true nature of free markets elsewhere, but not in the lead, some discussion is appropriate in the body of this article, but indpeth examination of the conept has to be left to free market, that's the great thing about hyperlinks. I don't see how you can have a lead on Thatcher without mentioning it, and I certianly don't think quoting verbatim from manifestos would be at all helpful.  David Underdown (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yesterday, as I recall, your complaint was that the passage read like excerpts from a Conservative manifesto. Now your solution is to replace it with excerpts from the Conservative manifesto. It doesn't sound like much of an improvement, but if you want to try it out, go ahead, and we can see if it's an improvement. On the subject of ending relative economic decline, the United Kingdom lagged behind the productivity levels of other advanced capitalist countries until the labour-shedding recession of 1979-81 allowed it to close the gap. See Middleton, Government versus the Market, p. 630. According to the OECD, annual percentage change in real GDP per capita in Britain from 1964 to 1979 was lower than in OECD Europe and the USA, while from 1979-1989 it was higher. Indices of real GDP per worker also show a similar improvement in relative terms. Regardless, ending relative decline was her ambition, and would still have been her ambition, even if she had failed, so the statement of intention doesn't seem problematic.


 * On "Resist not evil", Matt 5:39 is in the King James version too. Your personal religious opinions about Thatcher are your own, and don't merit inclusion in the article. According to Kotler-Berkowitz's study of religion and voting behaviour: "Dissenting Protestants [including Methodists] display the highest overall levels of both behaviour and belief." The study also found: "Church attendance and membership and activism in religious groups reduce the likelihood of Labour voting." (My italics.) Source: Laurence A. Kotler-Berkowitz, "Religion and Voting Behaviour", British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 532, 541.


 * On the subject of Thatcher and religion, the following is a good, concise summary of her view of the role of religion, which led to a public disagreement with the social reformers of the Anglican hierarchy; the direct quotation from Thatcher herself (in bold) should probably be incorporated into the text of the article: "Addressing the Church of Scotland's General Assembly in May 1988 ... Mrs. Thatcher affirmed the belief that 'Christianity is about spiritual redemption, not social reform.' Her view had the backing of the majority of respondents to a Gallup Poll of Anglicans in 1985 — 58 percent of lay Anglicans were opposed to the church's active involvement in politics. But, by contrast, 86 percent of Anglican clergy claimed that their church should be actively involved in politics." Source: James A. Beckford, "Politics and Religion in England and Wales", Daedalus, Vol. 120, No. 3, Religion and Politics (Summer, 1991), p. 201, n. 36, citing Sunday Telegraph (1 April 1985). Lachrie (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry the Catholics burnt you and your friends alive Willski. The smashing up of the beautiful churches in the Reformation and the Inquisition, were both wrong..two wrongs don't make a right, I like to think i'd have spoken up against the Inquisition and then defended the beautiful churches..If 'resist not evil' is in the King James why did a devout Methodist ignore Jesus' words..I still say 'she remained a Christian' is there for a weird reason, she wasn't interested in religion, you know that, ...Specifically again that paragraph, 'Thatcher entered 10 Downing St..' scrap, its pompous 'peacock' i think wiki calls it, , then ' determined to reverse relative decline...' , redundant  rubbish, what Prime Minister 'enters 10 Downing Street' determined to accelerate  decline, its a kind of neutral looking set of words but it's a  sly attempt to make the reader think backwards, to associate the previous Labour govt, and union power with economic decline and continued  economic ongoing decline if the rascals had had the chance..but perhaps they too would havce increased gdp in the 80s, and perhaps the whole greed is good banking crisis, rich getting richer  scenario could have been avoided and Britain wouldnt be curling at the edges the way it is now, etc, we don't know... so scrap all that and have 'Thatcher had been elected on a manifesto promising a...then a fragment of quote from manifesto, b. for less state intervention or whatever (except the police, more state endowed power for them cos she'd be wanting them. c..free-market ideology. Then on to 'Initially unpopular amid...' then pick up the lead as it is..then the article lead is o.k I reckon. I certainly agree that verbatim quotes from the Manifesto is a horrible thing but at least they would be verifiable points about what she was first elected on.Sayerslle (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, the religious back-and-forth needs to stop. Wikipedia does not care whether you are a Protestant, a Catholic, a Jew, a Hindu, etc. The personal views of Wikipedia editors when it comes to religion are completely irrelevant; even if they were relevant, this is certainly not the place to discuss them. So please stop.


 * I think the first lead was better. It certainly was more concise and better fit for a lead section. I've had numerous discussions about leads on articles of high-profile policical figures. Generally when writing, the lead should not dwell on a single piece of information or a single event in the person's career; in this case, the rewritten version dwells too heavily on how or why she was elected.


 * Most importantly, it mentions nothing of her attempts to revitalize the economy. It mentions nothing of the free markets, which is the core point of Thatcherism. It mentions nothing of privitization, another crucial element. It introduces the trades unions, but the trades unions are already discussed three sentences down. Witholding crucial information about Thatcherism is not only a violation of WP:NPOV but it is flat out neglegent, especially as the lead then goes onto highlight her unpopularity without mentioning her attempts to restore the economy.


 * Beginning with "Thatcher entered 10 Downing Street" simply elevates the standard of the prose. If this article is ever to be nominated for FA down the road, one of the criteria is that the prose be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (WP:FA?, 1a). "Determined to reverse" may be rewritten as "with a mandate to" or "with the established goal of".


 * As it has been rewritten, it implies that Thatcher said those quotes. It is allowing the Conservative Manifesto to speak for her and act as the basis for all her thoughts. That is misrepresenting the subject. In addition, what is the Conservative Manifesto? What relevance is it to Thatcher other than the fact that she was (and is) a conservative? Maybe it is something well known in the U.K., but, as an American, I've never heard of it. And not all readers of this article are from the U.K.


 * In addition, just for those who may be unsure, the MOS does not mandate that the lead contain citations. It is assumed that all material in the lead is thoroughly referenced in the article.


 * As the burden is on the editor who wishes to make a change, I am going to revert until we can get this resolved. Happyme22 (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The words about 'reversing our countrys relative decline' are Thatchers words from the preface to the Manifesto, at least have the decency to put them in quotation marks, they are not self-evident, they are tendentious, it needs a ref to show how and in what ways Britain had declined 74-79..  - a Manifesto is a document outlining a partys political programme - it doesn't inspire much confidence that you don't know that, or at least look the bloody word up in a dictionary, how can you have had numerous talks on political issues and not know what a manifesto is, f..k me as Gordon Ramsay would say..' it mentions nothing of her attempts to revitalize the economy' , don't you see that is all POV , it may be messier to have a few  quotes instead of neat blue hyperlinks on freedom, free markets, entrepreneurs etc, but it would be more honest, less biased. When you do look at the Manifesto , which must be assumed to be endorsed by her dontcha know, it claims Labour can't represent the whole country because its union dominated , but that she could unite the country and heal divisions. She  had no particular class interest you see. Now , you may agree with that, but some see that as disingenuous, an appeal to the less conscious in the society who are tricked into voting for  a pro-big landowners, big business, multinationals party - not really for 'freedom' at all. But the lead just swallows  her 'line' whole. But an encyclopedia should be written by thinking humans, not spoon fed dummies. I discussed religion because  there was a claim supported by a bit of talk about her view of Xty  that sought to make out she 'remained a Christian', but there is no evidence religion was of the least importance to her, and is included in the article for no reason. She remained the daughter of her parents - and , so what, we are all given a religion or not as a child, same as we don't choose our parents, but if you want to prove adult religious adherence or commitment it needs a better quote. If I give my view on what Hinduism is, it doesn't make me a Hindu. All she does in the link is give a view of what Xty is. So what. I dont like the way either on a talk page you said some people want to turn the talk page into a sideshow, and all your good work must be protected. I want honestly to make it look more encyclopedic , less openly partisan. If Im not helping  thats bad but I am not trying to destroy anything, just make it less a hagiography, which it is. Sayerslle (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The manifesto is what the party promise to do if elected, it is there for the voting public to read (though i'd be suprised if many actually do, not at the time anyway!). Labour had one and the other smaller parties had them. So many people will have voted for her on her plans to sort out the general industrial mess and unrest that the country had, rather than vote for the Labour plans (which some who would normally vote Labour might have thought was more of the same etc).Willski72 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree hardly anybody reads the Manifesto but presumably she was saying stuff like ' we will re-unite the country as a union dominated party can't' on party political broadcasts which would have been seen by millions.It was a bizarre claim as subsequent events proved..Actually the words 'reversing our countrys relative decline' are not in the preface to the Manifesto written by Thatcher, they're in the first chapter.. just to be accurate., my mistake.I think I've had enough now, I'm going to leave off now.Sayerslle (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay so a Manifesto in the U.K. is the equivalent of a Political platform in the U.S., from what I'm getting.


 * So Thatcher did not recite those quotes, which means that we are misrepresenting the subject and attributing a quote to her which is not hers. That can't be done. She most likely endorsed it, but she didn't say it. Thatcher did attempt to revitalize the economy -- there isn't anything POV about that statement. Just as in the U.S. right now Obama is attempting to revitalize the economy, but his policies are controversial. Same in the U.K. with Brown. That doesn't mean that both men aren't attempting. Regardless of the result, Thatcher attempted to fix the economy by enacting programs which supported the free markets, which were based on supply side economics, which endorsed privitization, and encouraged entrepreneurialism. That is crucial information.


 * What I would do is retain the old lead and include this new Manifesto information in the last paragraph of the section of the article entitled "Leader of the Opposition", where information related to Thatcher's 1979 campaign is. Something such as this should be included: "The Conservative Party endorsed a platform of ...[Manifesto quotes]... and Thatcher campaigned on it." --Happyme22 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the old lead is much better. It's a more concise summary of Thatcher's full programme. She only seems to have contributed the foreword to the 1979 Conservative Party General Election Manifesto, and her radical programme isn't directly inferable from the understated text of 1979, when the political priority was controlling inflation. Thatcher always took a step-by-step approach to reform. The supply-side programme and trade union reform didn't start to come in until 1982, and the implementation of privatisation and deregulation was similarly gradual. Lachrie (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 'the understated text of 1979' ..examples ' This election may be the last chance we have to reverse the process [of favouring  the State at the expense of the individual], to restore the balance of power in favour of the people. It is therefore the most crucial election since the war.'  'Last winter this society seemed on the brink of disintegration.' ' The Conservative governments first job will be to rebuild our economy and reunite a divided and disillusioned people. ' (Remember Labour had been in power 74-79, 5 years - you'd think it had been 5,000 years in the face of this hyperbolic vomit. Understated? or a cynical, hysterical piece of blank sold by a charlatan. She begins in her foreword 'For me, the heart of politics is not political theory, it is people and how they want to live their lives.' But she was the most ideologically driven Conservative leader for years, Milton Friedman? not sure of spelling,, Friedrich Hayeks 'road to serfdom', were her gurus...in other words she's lying and she knows she is,  ' the last chance' 'the brink of disintegration' , she played on exaggerated fears. On page one of the Manifesto it says what a great country Britain is , 'It is a country rich in natural resources, in coal, oil, gas and fertile farmlands.' If only she'd spelt out what she had in mind for them..the fertile farmlands to a tiny minority, and coal, oh yeah she had plans for that but forgot to say what in her foreword.  'I agree the old lead is much better..' yeah, well, Sayerslle (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, this isn't a forum for general political discussions. Please try to confine your comments to suggesting specific improvements to the article. The 1979 manifesto is hard to use because it focuses on short term policy objectives and is understated in terms of predicting over a decade of policy. Politicians and activists tend to have strong opinions. That's part of their motivation. It would be more accurate to say that Thatcher, rather than "lying" about what she believed or what she was going to do, was gradually emboldened by her political successes, while her early cabinet critics were progressively sidelined. The appetite for change grew by what it fed on. The fact that the ideological consensus was greater among Thatcher's predecessors on both sides of the House doesn't mean they were any less ideological than Thatcher. She was no more nor less ideological than Foot, Kinnock or Scargill. The distinction between ideological and non-ideological issues is really a false one, being based on whether the issues are controversial from one ideological perspective or another. Friedman was a Nobel prize-winning economist. Hayek was only responding to social liberal and socialist ideologues in kind. So compared with your suggested change, as supposedly rationalised by the opinionated and unfocused ramble above, yes, I'm afraid the old lead is indeed very much better. Lachrie (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you prove  cross party consensus that the country was in relative decline?  Give me  a reference or something to read please. Looking back over some of the archives  the article has often been labelled biased in favour of Thatcher, doesn't that give you any pause.Sayerslle (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on! Cross party consensus! As if Labour were going to say that what they had believed in and pushed for the past 30 years (state control, socialism) had led to economic decline! Thats like asking for cross party consensus on whether there was lots of Tory sleaze in 1997, their not going to admit it, thats political suicide!Willski72 (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Although in 1983 Gerald Kaufman, a Labour MP, called Labour's 1983 manifesto the "Longest suicide note in history." Which may help to convey the truly dismal oppossiton that Thatcher was facing at the time.Willski72 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The criticism is rarely informed or constructive, but where it is, editors have tried to address it. There's a vast literature on declinism. Both parties had been blaming each other for causing relative decline for decades, and it was Labour who really did the most to make long-term relative decline, measured especially in terms of lagging economic growth and living standards, the central concern of British politics from the 1960s onwards. Relative decline was what Harold Wilson was alluding to when in 1964 he attacked the "thirteen wasted years" of Tory rule, and it all fed into what Samuel Brittan described in 1978 as an "orgy of pessimism and self-doubt among British leaders" which characterized the 1970s.

Jim Tomlinson, "Inventing 'decline': the falling behind of the British economy in the postwar years", Economic History Review, XLIX, 4 (1996), pp. 732-3:

As Campbell rightly argues, "1964 was the first General Election at which modernisation was the central issue. The notion of Britain's relative decline - the realisation that in terms of economic prosperity, social services, and the 'quality of life' Britain was falling behind other industrialised countries - had struck the previously complacent public consciousness quite suddenly within the previous five years. It was to be the staple assumption of every subsequent election over the next three decades."

In this period declinism was reinvented largely around the idea that Britain was lagging behind the growth in living standards taking place in other west European countries. This notion of decline was highly political, as Budge rightly emphasizes. He stresses the party political aspect, where political parties or groups out of power use "decline" as a stick to beat the government. This was certainly true in the late 1950s, where the opposition Labour Party took up decline as a basis for attacking the Conservative government, with the latter belatedly responding, and this important party political aspect will be returned to later. But in a broader sense the idea of living standards as a major concern, which underlies the new declinism, can only be understood politically, as marking a change in ideas about the extent and nature of government responsibility for economic performance. (My bold.) Lachrie (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I get bits like...'the notion of Britains relative decline..'He stresses the party political aspect where political parties or groups out of power use "decline" as a stick to beat the govt. That's the point I was trying to make isn't it? .. Also I didnt want the analysis of an academic, or Wilson, Wilson was gone, retired, I want quotes from Callaghan, the Labour front bench that say ' yes, we know we are in relative decline , and its true , we all agree on our countrys relative decline' that kind of thing . I like the way you criticize my 'opinionated' ramble, you of course are neutral, I mean you love Thatcher obviously, but otherwise you're neutral.Sayerslle (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The larger segment you quote is from an essay titled Inventing 'decline' , thats the title, thats what I meant about the tendentious start to the section in the lead. On a general stylistic level I do agree that the lead shouldn't get  too long, that over time the lead tends to creep , and get unwieldy again, but that's a different pointSayerslle (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My political opinions don't belong in the article and neither do yours. The contemporary acceptance of relative economic decline - in the sense of a measurable lag in growth and improvement of living standards relative to other major advanced capitalist economies in the sixties and seventies - is uncontroversial. That you're even seeking to contest this indicates you have little real knowledge of contemporary British history, and are wasting everybody's time. What was debated by the political parties was the causes of and cures for that decline, with each party blaming the other. You're taking the title of an article you haven't even read out of context because doing so fits your openly revisionist anti-Thatcher agenda. Once again, you're making highly selective use of evidence you haven't even read in order to try to create an exaggerated sense of controversy. The notion that economic decline was occurring wasn't controversial. Far from being Thatcher's invention, as your edit falsely implied (without adducing any source whatever), belief in economic decline permeated the entire political culture, and went almost completely unchallenged. As Tomlinson says in his opening paragraph: "The idea that the British economy has in some sense declined in the past century informs most recent historical writing, especially economic, but also social and political. 'Declinism' can aptly be described as an ideology, a set of ideas and assumptions which are popular and largely unquestioned, articulated in both elaborate and more cursory treatments. The central assumption of declinism is that, measured by one or more aggregate economic indices, economic performance has been deficient and that, in principle, this deficiency is, or was, avoidable or remediable. Declinism therefore embraces the belief that something could and should be done to improve economic performance. Few have disputed this approach to modern British economic history. The object of this article is not to debate whether the British economy has declined or not. Rather, the aim to treat the notion of decline as an historical product and explore its origins. The questions addressed are how and why such a pervasive approach to recent British economic history came into being. To do this it is necessary first to differentiate between notions of decline."

I'm not deleting the references to Hayek and Friedman in the lead yet, as the matter does deserve some consideration, but Thatcher was influenced by many economists. Contrary to myth, she attacked laisser-faire doctrines and her government largely gave up on monetarism as a distinctive approach of macroeconomic management, so singling out Hayek and Friedman is also a rather dubious tactic, more appropriate for a polemic than an encyclopaedia, and probably doesn't fairly reflect the range of more immediate influences on her thinking. Lachrie (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 'I'm not deleting the references to Hayek and Friedman,,' but you did. Is Friedman mentioned anywhere?

'Reading the voluminous literature on British industrial decline, a visitor to Britain in the 1970s or 1980s might have expected to find a country in economic collapse, with large absolute falls in living standards. On the contrary the economy has made steady progress throughout the century, and will produce 3 to 4 times as much wealth in 2000 as it did in 1900  If there has been any economic decline at all, it has been a relative decline, a decline that can only be observed when the performance of the British economy is compared with the performance of similar economies. Whether it makes sense to compare the performance of national economies as though they were single organisations with a directing will has often been questioned. Even if it were concluded that decline was an illusion lacking any objective basis in reality it would still be necessary to explain why such a large part of Britains political elite interpreted British experience in the twentieth century as one of decline. This question can be answered once it is understood that the question of decline only makes sense by considering the interrelationship of the relative economic decline and the absolute decline in world power. It was always the absolute decline that mattered most to the British political elite, and measures to stave that off and preserve Britains traditional global role always took preference over the task of modernising the British economy and British society. In terms of its importance and capacities as a great power, Britains position in 2000 will be much reduced compared to 1900....the phenomenon of decline in a state which is or has been hegemonic has its own special character. An imperial state whose elite has become accustomed to thinking in global terms views poor domestic performance, its causes and its remedies, in a particular way. The political debate on British decline lasted from the 1880s to the 1980s, but the context of hegemony and empire, which gave it significance, is now no more. Decline is unlikely to haunt the British political imagination in the 21st century as it did in the 20th.' Andrew Gamble. I still believe she exaggerated, like a demagogue , the collapse, the crisis, the decline, theres no sense whatever in the lead that this was a politician adept at the art of propaganda and playing on the fears of people, maybe you're too 'economics' minded and miss something of the politics, I don't know. I don't think the reference to the intention of Scargill to bring down the govt is satisfactory, the mail and globe in canada/ how is that o.k? How are you supposed to consult that? Sayerslle (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also - Looking on Amazon at Andrew Gambles books theres a title 'The Free Economy and the Strong State The Politics of Thatcherism    ..the bit in the lead that says 'her political philosophy and economic policies emphasised reduced state intervention'  so why  'the strong state' in the title?  Sayerslle (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your other deletions because they weren't constructive.

The Labour government of 1974-9 acknowledged the reality of relative economic decline and implemented policies intended to reverse it, first, under Wilson, through state intervention, and second, under Callaghan, through reform of the education system.

Heather Cathcart and Geoff Esland, "Schooling and Industry: Some Recent Contributions", British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1983), pp. 276, 278: "A recent account of the origins of the Great Debate [on industry and education initiated by Callaghan] has been provided by John Beck in an article entitled 'Accountability, industry and education' (Beck, 1983). Beck's argument is that the origins of the Great Debate can be found in the collapse of the Labour Government's industrial strategy between 1974 and 1976. A central aim of this strategy, as set out in its Manifesto of February 1974, was the reversal of the 'long-term decline of British manufacturing industry through a programme of greatly increased state intervention'. Part of this strategy included proposals for the establishment of the National Enterprise Board, but there was also an intention to increase the accountability of companies through the extension of industrial democracy by means of company planning agreements. According to Beck, these proposals and those subsequently of the Bullock Committee on Industrial Democracy were greeted by a campaign of resistance from employers. This protest combined with the worsening economic situation and internal divisions within the Labour Party led to the abandonment of industrial democracy as an immediate goal. It was replaced by a new, more consensus-based strategy, one of the central elements of which was an attack on economically harmful attitudes alleged to be engendered by the education system. As Beck puts it, 'It was Britain's education system which was increasingly made to bear the main burden of responsibility for the country's relative economic decline.' ... It is quite evident that as a populist campaign, the industry-education debate launched by James Callaghan will survive longer than most." Lachrie (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Heres an interesting piece written by a left wing historian (Pauline Gregg) in the seventh (revised) edition of 'A Social and Economic History of Britain 1760-1972'. As you can see this is is from the time in question and here she is talking about the late 60s. She writes,

"In many directions growth remained the keynote.... A disturbing note, in a society suppossedly geared for maximum expansion, was the fact that unemplyoment was the highest since the War, reaching 600 thousand by the middle of 1970, not counting the school leavers. Some unemployment was caused by people changing jobs by redundancy..... But the figure was too high to be explained away in this fashion and was linked with the repeated crises which shook Britain at the end of the sixties. Externally these were expressed in repeated adverse balance of payments and by foreign borrowing.... Whether increased wages pushed up prices, or rising prices pulled wages up after them, the overall picture was of a spiralling inflation which the government desperately tried to stem. Refusing to be committed as to first causes, it spoke of a "prices and incomes" policy. The whole life of the 1966-70 Labour government was dominated by its efforts to enforce such a policy. Its failure to do so was the prime cause of its defeat in the Election of June 1970. The sixties are strewn with its failed endeavours-Prices and Incomes Board (established in 1965); the National Plan (September 1965); the Prices and Incomes Bill (July 1966). Whatever lip-service they paid to the need to stem inflation, the trade unions either would not or could not implement any wage restraint, and massive strikes continued.... 'In Place of Strife' was a White Paper with the subtitle "A Policy for Industrial Relations" and was published in January 1969. It proposed, like the Dononvan Report, a commission on industrial relations to look into disputes; a Register of Collective agreements {etc etc.}But trade union oppossition was firm and uncompromising. When it came to the point of loyalty to the Labour Party-their party- counted little, and appeals to the public good fell on deaf ears. The unions had narrowed their sites to wage increases, and they were so strong that the whole prices-and-incomes policy collapsed in the middle of 1969 as it became necessary to placate the unions before the general election that could not be far away.... But whatever it does and however it does it, the success-and the very life- of the Conservative government of 1970 will be bound up with the same set of problems which bedevilled the life of the Labour government- how far it can keep down prices and taxes, curb wages and salaries, and negotiate a realistic agreement with the trade union. There is little doubt not only that it will stand or fall by its success in these matters, but that the role of the trade unions in society and the whole relationship of capital and labour will be involved in the issue."

If this sounds a right wing sort of piece then it just goes to show how damaged Labour were by industrial decline at the time. If you read the rest of the book you see that she is definately Left-wing and was, previous to this, very supportive of Labour.Willski72 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heres more from the same book and the same author, this time talking about 1971-2 (Heath, Tory government).

"The miners, still very powerful in spite of pit closures and labour redundancy, {note that this was written before Thatcher was even oppossition leader} were by this time spoiling for a fight- more particularly since the fight would now be against the traditional enemy, a Tory government, and there would be no need to pull punches as there might have been if Labour had been in power. The miners, who considered themselves the aristocracy of the working world, doing work at once most important and the most dangerous, had improved their position so much since the War that, in spite of pit closures and the effects of redundancy, their wages had been well up amongst the highest in the country. But by 1970 they found themselves bot hit by rising prices and slipping down the national wage table as workers in private industry, particularly car workers, won big increases..... The miners did not agree to arbitration until they sensed that they had won. The tactic paid and they drove a hard bargain even after the Wilberforce Committee had reported. When their leaders emerged from 10 Downing Street with the terms both sides had accepted it was found that they had won an increase of about 21 per cent."

The miners did this again in 1974 and ended up toppling Heath's government when he called an early election on a "back me or sack me" principle. All will agree that Scargill had very strong principles and was far left. So suggesting that he might have tried to re-create the early 1970s is not so hard to believe. I'll finish with this,

"Though the full effect of restrictive action by workmen is difficult to reduce to statistics the bald figures show that the aggregate number of working days lost, which had remained, from 1964-67 at around 2,200,000 and 2,900,000 a year, jumped in 1968 to 4,690,000; in 1969 to 6,846,000 in 1970 to 10,980,000 and in 1971 to 13,558,000. The industrial position has, moreover, become such that the whole community can be held to ransom by any group operating an essential service. Sectional interests show a complete diregard for other people or for the community as a whole. There have been for a long time gross inequalities in British society, much selfishness and sectional greed. The Labour pioneers who brought their people up out of the abyss of oppression and inequality knew all about this. But they would not have condoned action which in essence is sheer anarchy, disrupting the whole economic system and bringing the maximum distress to the public, who are very largely their own fellow workers."Willski72 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note from GA Reviewer
I do think a GA Reassessment is needed here. Honestly, I, in a completely idiotic manner, barely even thought to look for neutrality errors. I don't think I'm experienced nearly enough with British politics, and the article is a little too controversial for me to take on. I'm open to taking the blame for this mistake, I shouldn't have reviewed the article. I would endorse a GAR because of the sheer level of criticisms above-obviously the article is not neutrally written, to say the least. I think that it is not incredibly biased as stated above, but it is enough so to cause concern. I apologize to all the fellow editors here whom I have disappointed in any way.  ceran  thor 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't beat yourself up about it. Almost everybody seems to fancy himself an expert on contemporary history by virtue of having lived through it, but it's often those with the strongest opinions who turn out to be the least informed. Lachrie (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)