Talk:Thatcherism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Put your text for the new page here.

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

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

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

Contents 1 Typo? 2 If "Thatcherism" is a term of abuse... 3 Re: Thatcherism as a form of Government 4 citations in legacy section 5 Article being used to promote marginal views 6 Thatcherites Category 7 "Thatcher was unusual among late twentieth century British Conservative Prime Ministers"

[edit] Typo?

" After the initial shock of getting pounded by mock"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, we do. The important thing is to put the article where people will find it, right? Although I think some of your POV arguments are valid, I (as a Christian) don't find the tritheism article particularly offensive just because of its name. An article of this name would be a good place to discuss the conflict between progressive and regressive politics in the context of 1980's Great Britain, and if Western Leninism were a catch phrase, I think it would be a good article title, too. There's even an established format for debates, if I'm not mistaken; feel free to add your account of the effects of these policies, and maybe even some right-wing thinkers' suggestions for how the public should rename this political movement if you so desire.

Also, feel free to sign your talk page contributions with three or for tildes, or by hitting the signature button on the toolbar above the editing window.--Joel 23:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

One more closing thought: "Christian" started as a term of abuse also. It's been over a millenium since that was the case, but I would say that the sooner you accept a commonly-used term, the sooner it will lose its utility as a way for your opponents to manipulate your emotions. Is it so wrong that powerful leaders lend their names to the systems of thought that they help establish? Anyone who looks at Christianity will find a link to monotheism; why not add "See also: Free Market Conservatism" to the end of this article?--Joel 00:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Though an admirer of Baroness Thatcher, I frequently link to this article as it is convenient political shorthand in the UK. Like so many terms originally intended as abuse, it has been enthusiastically embraced by its targets. What better than to have an -ism coined? It is a coherent set of ideas.

Thatcher was not a disciple of any US ideas. Her thought starts from Adam Smith, through Richard Cobden to Friedrich Hayek. All about as American as Jacques Chirac. However, her thinking departs from all of them, and from that of your own Barry Goldwater, in that she was a social conservative, rather too much so for my comfort. Social conservatism is a very European thing. Thatcher was appalled by US socialism and opposition to free trade as seen in its protectionism in agriculture that persists under George W. Bush.

That said, this seems like a POV article to me. Take the sentence:

The collapse of Britain's manufacturing base, which many blame on Thatcherism, was partly compensated for by the growth in the service industries.

Now, collapse of ... manufcaturing base, does this mean in terms of value of goods produced or in people employed? It the latter it is undeniably true but the former requires some evidence. I do not believe that the value of goods manufactured in Britain now is less than in 1980 but I will stand corrected if we can see some evidence. If a small decrease would not justify the word collapse. However, given that the UK has higher GDP and higher employment than in 1980, then growth in the service sector must have more than compensated. Have I understood this? Cutler 12:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Re: Thatcherism as a form of Government

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

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

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

[edit] citations in legacy section

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

I have restored both the citation and the citation needed flag.

Unfortunately I think you are getting a little close to original research with your belief that "the British electorate see few prominent differences between the major parties in terms of policy." It is quite probably true, but without any evidence it is just a belief, not a proven fact. However, if it such a widely held belief that people see "few prominent differences" between the major parties, then you should have no trouble finding a source to back up the statement.

Getting back to your removal of the citation, I would have to ask the question "who has referred to the Blair government as 'neo-Thatcherite'?" Even though I know a significant amount about British politics, I have never come across that specific phrase. Besides, this is an encyclopedia for a world wide audience, so it is a little unsafe to assume all readers will have a "thorough knowledge of British political culture". As the citation takes up just a few bytes of storage space, answers the question of who used that phrase and provides the reader a source of additional information, I can see no harm in retaining it. Road Wizard 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you really know a significant amount about British politics? The complaint about few major differences between parties has been a major source of contention amongst voters for a while now. And since this is an encyclopedia, then you would expect the text to be factual without the need for citation. Lapafrax 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research before continuing this discussion.

Justifying a statement that "the British electorate perceive few apparent differences in policy between the major political parties." needs more than a "feeling" that it is true. Is there any evidence to say how many of the British electorate think this way, if at all? I am well aware that political commentators and smaller parties often cry that there is no difference between the 3 main parties, but without a reliable source to support the statement, we risk the accusation that we are pushing a particular Point of View.

Because this is an encyclopedia we have more reason than most to verify that all we say is factual. Failing to properly cite and check sources is one of the main causes of criticism of Wikipedia in the global media, so the defense that "you would expect the text to be factual" is not really adequate.

If it is too difficult to find a reliable source that can quantify the amount of the electorate that feels this way, we can chose to rephrase the sentence instead. "The big three political parties in UK politics are often accused of having few differences between their policies." would be a good starting point. We could then find a quote on the BBC from a smaller party like Plaid Cymru or the Scottish National Party as an adequate citation for this lesser claim. Road Wizard 21:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article being used to promote marginal views

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

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

[edit] Thatcherites Category

Maybe someone could create Category:British Thatcherites

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

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