Talk: Margaret Thatcher

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

Archived content here:

• Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 1
• Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 2

Contents

1 Vandalism? 2 re: anon 3 Contradiction 4 Kesteven 5 Apologies for Topological_Geometrodynamics 6 Terms 7 Poll Tax 8 Positive

Vandalism?

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

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

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

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

re: anon

user:195.92.198.72 who also appears to be user:195.92.198.74 and user:195.92.198.75 (and they might like to get themselves a login, and sign their comments with 4 tildes, thus: ~~~~) has reverted this page 5 times in the past 24 hours...

If they have substantive information to add to the article, perhaps they might discuss it here first, rather than just reverting to an extreamly POV version? Iainscott 17:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My my Aris, what a brave man you are... hurling abuse at me on an internet forum? Your comments about a 'wave of patriotism' tell me you know little if anything about Thatcher, and your continuing belief that record bankrupcies, unemployment at a level unknown since the 1930s, British cities in flames are all signs of a country 'doing well'? Go back to school sonny.

Contradiction

The article currently contradicts itself. Way back in 2002 I added the bit about her being dubbed the Iron Lady by the Russians. Someone has expanded that slightly and stated that the appellation originated with the Soviet Defence Ministry newspaper Red Star, but someone else had put in the first paragraph that it originated with Radio Moscow. Clearly this inconsistency within the article needs to be resolved. Mintguy (T) 17:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added the reference to 'Red Star' after getting the information from newspapers at the time of Thatcher's original "guns before butter" speech. However it's not a full contradiction as it was 'Red Star' which coined the phrase, and Radio Moscow which publicised it. Dbiv 12:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kesteven

I'm surprised Iain Scott has reverted the references to Kesteven. Looking at Archive2, it finishes with an agreement to refer to Kesteven. Besides, calling her Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven is hardly wrong, because she is often referred to as that. As far as calling it the 'Barony of Thatcher' - just where did that come from. It looks naff, and I've never seen the 'of Thatcher' bit in common usage. I propose (1) mentioning Kesteven somewhere in the article; (2) Replacing 'Barony of Thatcher' with something sensible; or (3) as an alternative to (2), deleting that row of the table on the left hand side completely. What do others think? Jongarrettuk 13:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kesteven is indeed mentioned: see Margaret_Thatcher#Post-political career. I agree that "Life Barony of Thatcher" sounds naff, but I think (though I dont pretend to be an expert) that is closer to being correct than "Life Barony of Kesteven" because the latter is certainly wrong (see 5th paragraph Styles and titles of peers). I have changed it to "Life Peerage: Baroness Thatcher", though for all I know that might be stubly wrong as well! If we cant work out something which is both acurate and looks sensible, I support removeing the row: the information is already in the article. Iain 15:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd missed the post-political career reference to Kesteven (oops) (I think it should be there, but I agree, once is enough). I for one am happy with "Life Peerage: Baroness Thatcher". If anyone has objections to it, I agree, let's remove the row. Jongarrettuk 17:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is perfectly correct to refer to the "Barony of Thatcher," like the "Dukedom of Norfolk," the "Viscountcy of Stansgate," etc. The usage of "of" in "Barony of X" does not imply that "of" should be used in "Baron[ess] X"; certainly, "Barony Thatcher" would be incorrect. Consequently, "Life Barony of Thatcher" would be appropriate.

The "of Kesteven" phrase should not be used when referring to Lady Thatcher. It is a territorial qualification, a remainder of feudal times, and exists in the case of every Baron or Viscount. It is not, properly speaking, a part of the title.

Removing a row merely because the information is already in the article does not seem reasonable to me. Shall we also remove the rows stating her name, her period in office, her predecessor, her date of birth, her place of birth and her political party (i.e. the entire table) because all these are mentioned in the article as well?

BUT... I think I may have found an acceptable solution: "Life Barony (Thatcher)". -- Emsworth 23:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arnt all life peers barons? in which case "Life peerage (Thatcher)" might read better (though obviously how it reads is secondary to accuracy) Iain 08:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about just "Life Barony"? Jongarrettuk 08:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At the moment, yes, but there have been plenty of life peerages of other ranks granted throughout history. Proteus (Talk) 11:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To quote Burke's Peerage, she is styled "THE BARONESS THATCHER, of Kesteven, Co. Lincoln". Her peerage is not geographical, so it is incorrect to use "Baroness of Kesteven" - but neither is it correct to use "Baroness of Thatcher". The "of [placename]" is generally only used formally, or when distinguishing between two peers with the same surname. Whilst the word barony can be used to describe either the rank or the domain of a baron(ess), it confuses the issue when used with a non-geographical title - if anything, it should "the Barony of Thatcher, of Kesteven".

Yes, all life peers are barons (the Life Peerage Act states that they "rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent". As for there having been other life peerages granted previously, thats not really correct: the British peerage became hereditary simply because the heirs of deceased peers challenged the Crown in court over the right to inherit the Writ of Summons to Parliament - and won. Its for this very reason that the Life Peerage Act had to be passed. ThievingGypsy 20:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To address your points in order: 1) She is "Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire", but she isn't styled that, as territorial designations are never used in that way. She's simply styled "The Baroness Thatcher" or "The Lady Thatcher" (as Burke's shows when it gives her address). 2) No one is suggesting she is "Baroness of Thatcher" - she does, however, hold the Barony of Thatcher, just as the Earl Spencer holds the Earldom of Spencer and the Marquess Conyngham holds the Marquessate of Conyngham. 3) The "of [placename] in the County of [county]" bit of her peerage is never used, formally or informally, nor is it for any peer. Those life peers who are "Lord/Lady Surname of Place" are "Baron(ess) Surname of Place, of Place in the County of Loamshire". (Look up Lady Kennedy of The Shaws in Burke's for an example of how they show this.) 4) The word "barony" (or "viscountcy", or "earldom", or whatever) is often used with non-territorial titles. A barony in this sense is simply a titular dignity, and has nothing to do with domains or territory (unlike, say, a Scottish barony). 5) All life peers created under the Life Peerages Act and Appellate Jurisdiction Act have been barons and baronesses, but life peerages were created for centuries before that, the most recent being the Earldom of Brandon created for the Dowager Lady Athenry in 1758. (I suggest you read our article on life peers.) Proteus (Talk) 21:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not certain what ThievingGypsy is referring to when he talks about heirs of deceased peers challenging the crown, but the earlier life peerages referred to were created by letter patent, not by writ of summons. Notable instances include the Dukedom of Portsmouth, created for Charles II's mistress, or the Dukedom of Hamilton created for the husband of the de jure Duchess of Hamilton - both in the 17th century, long after anyone stopped making writs of summons (at least on purpose). john k 22:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for Topological_Geometrodynamics

(William M. Connolley 08:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Oops!. The link to Topological_Geometrodynamics was a mistake of my browsers rather than a subtle attempt by me to link in irrelevance. Sorry.

Terms

What's all this about "terms"? British PMs don't have them and never have. Proteus (Talk) 16:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Poll Tax

In the 'Third Term' section the article states: "Introducing the charge one year early led to accusations that Scotland was a 'testing ground' for the tax. Although untrue (Thatcher believed the policy would be popular and the Scots would benefit from it a year earlier) this led to a sharp decline in the popularity of the Conservative party in Scotland."

This is conjecture at best. There were accusations at the time that implementing the policy in Scotland was testing the water, however this is isn't necessarily untrue. The article should stick to the facts and not speculate on Thatchers intentions.

One thing is without doubt: Thatcher thought Poll Tax was a good thing that would be much more popular than the existing rates. Nor is the statement speculation - she discusses the Poll Tax and the intentions behind it in some detail in her autobiography, so stating her intentions is not speculation. She gives a number of reasons why Scotland went first. In particular she noted that Scotland was well overdue a rates review (which would have been unpopular too). Unfortunately my copy is at my parents' house, but I think from memory that she is explicit in stating that Scotland wasn't seen as a testing ground (though almost every Scot thought otherwise!). Perhaps someone with a copy more to hand could check the point. jguk 19:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What Thatcher says in her autobiography is surely not unimpeachable as an accurate reflection of her views several years earlier. She has every reason to obfuscate and put herself in the best light possible. john k 23:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Phrase it 'In her autobiography, Thatcher says her intentions were....' Then the reader is put on notice. jguk 07:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like we should state what people thought it meant at the time, and then state Thatcher's explanations in her memoirs (and any other explanations that may have been offered up). john k 08:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A worthwhile source here is Nigel Lawson's memoirs The View from Number 11. Lawson was an opponent of the introduction of the Poll Tax (the index to TVfN11 has the entry Community Charge - see Poll Tax in contrast to Thatcher's Poll Tax - see Community Charge). According to Lawson's account the pressure for rating reform started in Scotland following the rating revaluation of, IIRC, 1985. Lawson says that he pushed for enactment first in Scotland. There seems to have been an element of pique in this. In Lawson's view the minority Scottish Conservatives had foisted the Poll Tax on the national party. In effect Lawson was saying to them: If you think its such a good idea, then try it at home first. -- Alan Peakall 18:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Positive

This article seems too positive to me making her out to have been a good leader where she was quite the opposite. I'm not saying it should be against her but it should be more neutral and not so in her favour.