Talk:Margaret Thatcher

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics UK.svg

This British politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

You know, someone (I don't remember who) suggested that the first woman President of the United States would be more like Margaret Thatcher than Hillary Clinton. Apparently because women needed to break away from the stereotype as bleeding-heart liberals, which is sexism if I ever heard it. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:30, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Bloody hell... whoever suggested that idea should take a close, hard look at what the Iron Bitch did to the UK during her time. She brought the country to its knees on a platform of "conservative" values and policies. I laughed myself to tears when the Tories knifed her in the back and booted her out. A hateful, spiteful woman. Spica 18:41, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Well, I know that Andrew Sullivan (who stills ADORES Thatcher) said something like that. While I do appreciate the idea that a woman should become president on her own merits, not by riding the coattails of another President, I still think Thatcherism should be relegated to the dust bin of history. Researcher 22:55, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Greatness[edit]

"...pickled himself to death with alcohol as a form of socially acceptable suicide."

That line is genius. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:52, 27 December 2007 (EST)

<Bows> Eyethangewe!! :D Spica 17:34, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Carol[edit]

I feel quite sorry for Carol, with her upbringing & surrounded by that awful family she's grown into a fairly witty woman. Alright she's right wing but she'd need a Symbionese kidnapping to be anything else with her background. 193.113.235.174 19:17, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Ireland?[edit]

How about a section about Internment of Irish Republicans Without Trial? --78.16.194.246 19:46, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

??A section saying, "Internment was suspended a year before she was elected, and she never reintroduced it"..? Go for it. Fox 19:55, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
As much as I hate to stand up for Thatcher, internment policies aren't something that you can hang on her - they really date back to earlier governments. PFoster 19:59, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
The iron lady is guilty of many a thing when it comes to Ireland, but internment is not one of them. MarcusCicero 18:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if Mr 78 is confusing internment with the hunger strikes? Totnesmartin 19:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Well she was in bad taste when dealing with the hunger strikers - those men are martyrs to the Republican cause and continue to attract sympathy from even the most abject anti Republican here in the south. Hunger striking is in the Irish blood - Thatcher was the atypical villain of the piece and it is possible that her wickedness has been exaggerated over here. MarcusCicero 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I find myself wanting to add Sean Brady's "The Thatcher Song" to this if I can find a decent link. Arawn Emrys (talk)

Alzheimers[edit]

Much as I hated, and still hate, the cow, I can't bring myself to gloat over her dementia. Anyone wishing to add some snark, please do.
TOAST
and butter 13:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

What about attributing it to divine intervention?— Unsigned, by: Orderbel / talk / contribs

Still not funny. I don't care who someone "was", once they've lost their mind it's a sad thing for them and those that love them. Hence my sympathy for Nancy Reagan. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher was, and still is, a disgusting human being. But thankfully, karma can be a bigger bitch. Some folks deserve sympathy when illness overwhelms them, but in my view, Thatcher isn't one of them.Beery (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I thought you'd run out of ways to make me sick. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous claim[edit]

To say Thatcher went to war for oil is preposterous. Argentina was the aggressor for one thing. If you want to make the case that she wanted a war because it was immensely popular (One need only look at the tabloid press of the period) then fine - but this whole oil story reeks of ridiculousness (Just to add, there are 2,800 Imperial citizens living on the islands, who were invaded by an aggressive Argentina and who clearly do not want to be a part of that state. Grow the fuck up little man.) MarcusCicero 20:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I was there in 1982. It was immensely popular among the tabloid press. Doesn't mean it was enormously popular among the people. The inhabitants of the islands didn't even have full British citizenship until 1983.Beery (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Good lord. This whole experience has prompted me to establish the Rationalwiki reform society. Watch this space. (This is the inevitable result of being stuck at home on a friday night with a miserable headcold) MarcusCicero 21:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The society is formed. Long live Rationalwiki. MarcusCicero 21:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

left winger Ronald Reagan?[edit]

Its almost like the cancer in this place grows every hour. Now Reagan was left wing compared to Thatcher? Try harder, please. MarcusCicero 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He was to the left of her at least he never claimned that society didn't exist. — Unsigned, by: 97.86.236.60 / talk / contribs .

– Adolf Hitler was to the left of Thatcher (pardon my Godwins) and Dick Cheney is a fluffy socialist by comparison. To find a more right-wing politician at the time, you'd have had to run Ayn Rand. Ebon (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am a very big fan of Thatcher, but[edit]

The article contains almost no really relevant information, it is not even funny and its "point of view" remains unclear or simply idiotic. --Earthland 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The only real problem is that it doesn't convey her sociopathic cold-blooded evil strongly enough Ebon (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

^Seconded. Also we need to watch this one. I think some Thatcher-supporters are getting their knickers in a twist and trying to paint her in a more positive light edit by edit--TheTalkingToaster (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we sort this out please?[edit]

I know you're trying to be humorous and all, but this article is a joke. I'm going to fix it. ProudTory (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. What did you have in mind? Suggest changes here before making wholesale alterations to articles that you know will be controversial. DamoHi 12:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I edited the economics section so that it represented the mainstream economic historical view. I also amended the section of the Falklands in order to point out that Thatcher fought a war against colonialism, as the peoples of the Falklands have always been steadfast in their identity as British and would have helpless in the face of an invasion by a rapacious foreign military dictatorship. ProudTory (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah but you are whitewashing her too much. You obviously idolise her, but so what. --DamoHi 12:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Am I? The consensus economic view is that Britain in the 70s was sclerotic, backwards, and increasingly fading into irrelevance. The Britain of the 90s was confident, prosperous and one of the wealthiest parts of the world. This is an historical fact. The defense of the falklands against a foreign tyrant is what makes her such a fantastic leader, an iron lady perhaps. ProudTory (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
"Confident, prosperous" Yeah, and a ticking time bomb. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Meh, the UK has serious economic issues, just like the rest of the modern world. Thatcher caused her share of that, just like other governments. She was certainly not some economic wonder woman. I don't have an awful lot of sympathy for the idea that the Malvinas need to be British, though I can accept that the UK has an interest in protecting its colonial assets. Whether or not the Argentinians were acting legitimately in retaking that territory by force is an interesting question for sure. --DamoHi 12:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
What you call the Falklands is your own business, but surely as a humanitarian you cannot deny the fact the people inhabiting those islands deserve to choose their own destiny. If they choose to remain part of the Commonwealth, who exactly are you to say otherwise? The economic question is a big one, but the cartoonish vision offered by this article is absurd and reminiscent of the tea party hysteria directed against your own President, Barack Obama. Perhaps you should reflect on that. ProudTory (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This smacks of bias. This article is locked because some editor can't handle basic scrutiny of his 'arguments'. Is this website run on fear of the powerful (so called 'sysops') or reason? — Unsigned, by: ProudTory / talk / contribs
"This smacks of bias" Good. This is a biased website. That means we're doing or job. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Is that supposed to be an answer? I suggest you change the website's definition on the front page as right now you appear to be an unreasonable far left socialist unwilling to countenance the fact that you are wrong. Explorations of authoritarianism indeed. Can't win an argument? Then shut it down. Classic communist tactic.— Unsigned, by: ProudTory / talk / contribs
I believe we're almost at the part where you say "I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALwiki!!1!11!!" Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Attempting to whitewash Maggie! Probably likes Cameron, Osborne & Clegg! Twat! Scream!! (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe how childish you people are. No wonder the left aren't taken seriously by people anymore. ProudTory (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Holding a single website as the defining representative of a whole wing of the political spectrum is a bit... stupid. Or you were just trying to shame them into treating you "respectfully"? It won't work, believe me.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI - I gave PT a warning on teh undo wars. Proud, fell free to change anything - ONCE. after that, if you undo an undo, rather than "take it to talk page", i'm going to play god, and freeze you out for an hour or so. Please edit, but if the mob disagrees, even if we are just stupid ass liberals, then bring complaints to the talk page. Thanks. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Before I do anything I am going to say my opinions may be biased because I'm one of those dreaded conservatives. Having said that, I think ProudTory is more-or-less correct in his edits to the page. The issue isn't, in my opinion, what he is saying so much as how he is saying it. As a sysop I'm going to alter the page in a way I think should please everyone. Everyone feel free to let me know how much you want to through bricks at me.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It is (or perhaps was) largely a set of anti-Thatcher insults. We can probably do better.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 18:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Just don't use "dynamic", unless you are talking about something physics-related.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The only good thing that will ever be said about Thatcher is "She's dead" - horrible, horrible woman! Scream!! (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I often find that the hatred directed towards Thatcher is only acceptable because she is a woman. Sexism is rife amongst the left, or so it appears. ProudTory (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Well of course. The "left" is not as homogeneous a group as the "right" tends to be. You'll find right-wing feminists, sexist socialists, et cetera. Blue Talk 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Edits done. I'm going to include the irony about her actions in the Falklands being anti-Colonial in the actual page on the Falklands. Also, lets every act our ages and not go around accusing the other side of being something they are not just because we don't like them.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to me or 'Scream'? (An apt username) ProudTory (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

She also created massive unemployment, supported Pinochet the Chilean dictator to the end and asked Gorby to invade Berlin.

Parts of the UK have never recovered and the Irish peace process was set back twenty years by her. Probably the biggest recruiter for the SNP.Albannach (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Views on CFCs and global warming[edit]

I've read that her views about them were influenced by her education as a chemist. Can someone more knowledgeable of British politics dig what were those views exactly and how they translated into policy?--ZooGuard (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly she was firmly in the "We must do something about global warming" camp by the end of her reign.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 19:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thatcher established the UK Met Office due to reports about global warming. There is even a denialist conspiracy theory that Thatcher promoted action against global warming as a sop to the nuclear industry. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The Met Office was around long before MT.Albannach (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake -- she established the Hadley Center as part of the Met Office. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
That makes more sense.Albannach (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reagan "a left-wing version of Thatcher" Complaint #2[edit]

I'm going to question that as well. By the beginning of the post-Thatcher consensus the NHS and progressive taxes were still alive (no matter how much she hated them), and as mentioned above, she accepted global warming. Trade unionization in the UK still hovers around 20%.

Saint Ronnie's psychotics ensured that none of the four are acceptable in American society. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? We have progressive taxation here in the US, both income, and total tax burden. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Define "progressive." Osaka Sun (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Achtung Ironie Ladie! Albannach (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the infamous "Yet"[edit]

So, as some may know, there was a section on the artcle titled "Is Margaret Thatcher Dead Yet?", created partly because a sizeable portion of the UK population were waiting for it, and partly because of the website. One editor has consistently tried keep the "yet" part out of the title, so instead of starting an edit war, I thought we'd try to reach a consensus on whether or not it should stay gone.

As I understand it, the "yet" was removed on the grounds of "taste". In my opinion, and as I have said in the page history comments, this isn't a good enough reason to remove it, on three counts:

  1. Taste is subjective, as the name implies.
  2. It was part of a joke. Not only does removing the yet just make the title seem awkward, it also goes against the idea of Rational Wiki, I think, who's appeal partly stems from it's satirical nature.
  3. And, most importantly, the yet plays on the fact that many people hate her (and hence are glad it happened), just like the rest of the article is. The main picture even equates her with Satan. If you're going to start removing things because it's disrespectful of the dead, you might as well bowdlerise the entire article.

This also applies to the "What a bitch" part of the sentence in Random Tidbits regarding German reuinification, which, again, was rather amusing. For these reasons, I feel that both the aforementioned changes should be reverted, and further attempts to change the article to be more forgiving to Thatcher on the grounds of "respect for the dead" ceased once and for all--TheTalkingToaster (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed "what a bitch" & it had nothing to do with "respect for the dead" & was all about avoiding language that carries connotations of "uppity women should know their place". €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I've slightly re-tooled the section to make the reason behind the "yet" header a little more transparent. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, OK, cool; that works too. Also, regarding the second point (the use of the word "bitch"), I think you're tilting at windmills a little. Bitch is actually a general pejorative, though it is applied to women more frequently (though by no means exclusively). It's like the more feminine version of the word "dick" (which is more usually applied to men)--TheTalkingToaster (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to think we can call Thatcher out on her bullshit without having to resort to gendered insults. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 02:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The Handbag[edit]

Surely there should be some mention of MT's handbag - used as a cartoon metonym, and the verb 'to handbag.' 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: that bloke who says stuff on talk pages / talk / contribs

SophieWilder 17:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Caught my interest. All I've seen of it is this illustration in a column by that fucker. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 18:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Funeral[edit]

Technically, it was a "ceremonially" funeral not a "state" funeral.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/08/no-state-funeral-margaret-thatcher Grim23 (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Liberal Bias in This Report[edit]

While I appreciate the fact that RationalWiki is most likely to engage a liberal attendance, I believe any source that slants too far in one direction is not likely to be taken seriously by the very audience the source intends to inform. Note: I have not read through all edit histories and the like and I suspect the bias apparent in this article is a symptom of an abundance of liberal and a lack of conservative input. Also note: I am not English and only marginally follow UK politics. I appreciate Thatcher's reputation to some degree, but this page appears to be a sort of "booger wall" where every left-wing pundit has dumped snot on this personage. Again, I'm a newbie to RW, but it seems the site should have some editorial policies in place (along with personnel to apply such policies) to prevent this sort of bias from running rampant. For example, the MRSA discussion blames the spread of this problem on Thatcher's policies, when it is, in fact, a global problem directly attributable to a bacterial pathogen's proclivity to scavenge useful plasmids - in short, the liberals of this site promote evolutionary theory (as do I) but seem unwilling to attribute it where such attribution collides with their liberal leanings. Margaret Thatcher was no more responsible for the spread of MRSA than the patients that died of it. This is just ONE example of the disturbing bias evident here. I wonder what would happen, were I to find and here post a dozen POSITIVE things to say about this woman... however maligned, she was also a great example of her gender. Any response?--Epsilon3 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Cabinet[edit]

The article says there was only one woman in Thatcher's cabinet. Edwina Currie, Virginia Bottomley, Marion Roe, and Baroness Trumpington were all cabinet cabinet secretaries or under-secretaries— Unsigned, by: 96.241.42.182 / talk / contribs 06:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

About Society[edit]

Here's the full quote: "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." I'm not saying that the quote piece needs replacement with the full quote. The point I'm trying to make is that if Margaret Thatcher is truly so wickedly cold, why is it necessary to misrepresent her words? Cyberpink (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

How exactly is the current excerpt misrepresenting the full quote? Sure, the full quote elaborates on the details, but the excerpt focuses on exactly the point about society having no obligations to its citizens except some sort of charity for the deserving poor. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The point she was making was that society isn't meant to be thought of as this abstract mass that can solve your problems. Society isn't a faceless collective but a collective of individual faces just like an individual with a problem. Government and society are not things on their own. It takes individuals to make up these institutions/social constructs. Thatcher felt people forget this and do not keep in mind how other individuals are affected when they make demands from the government. Society has no obligations because only individuals can. Everyone has their own burdens and before someone may take on another person's burden this person must show some attempt at helping his/herself if possible or be in some state in which that is simply not possible such as the deserving poor. The quote as it is currently implies Thatcher intended it with far more cruelty than it has. I think removing the link to Social Darwinism and perhaps the social contract jab would make using the partial quote less of a misrepresentation. Cyberpink (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not how I read the excerpt. Just as the full quote it clearly shows Thatcher's attitude that society should at most step in when neighbours or families can no longer support those who fall on hard times or what we may call a sort of "hat in hand society". This is indeed a callous attitude because it shoves responsibility onto neighbourhoods and will encourage a sort of social NIMBY attitude, not to mention that it will be economically regressive (given that neighbourhoods tend to be fairly homogeneous in terms of income with the top and bottom of the economic ladder rarely rubbing shoulders).
My use of the term "deserving poor" was also a rather sneering one, because it harkens back to Victorian attitudes where only those poor whom the bourgeoisie considered "moral" were able to get aid. Sure, it's not fully fledged Social Darwinism of the "just let them perish" variety, but it does rely on the same vein of social callousness that ascribes various socio-economic problems solely or overwhelmingly to personal (moral) failings.
However, I will change the link to Social Darwinism welfare queen because I think this is the core of her message: The straw man that in the U.K. at the time there was a widespread system of entitlements without obligations. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Maggie as a Chickenhawk[edit]

I was about to revert this edit when I thought of something. A chickenhawk is a person who supports a militaristic foreign policy while not having served in the armed forces. While Thatcher does fit that definition, she was literally incapable of serving in the armed forces in any combat capacity. Does that make a difference? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The way the term is most often used, it is meant to accuse the person so-called, of cowardly behavior, because they had purposely evaded military service. That does not seem to apply in this case.Ariel31459 (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)