Which MBA?

I think that the new Oxford Center should be named as Thatcher Center because Mrs Thatcher fought for freedom and liberty around the world, defeated the Evil Empire - Soviet Union, and encouraged private sector development and entrepreneurship as the main engines of economic growth.

Nowdays, we have no leader like Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan who can stand up to dictators, and defend freedom and liberty around the world.

I SUPPORT naming the Center Margaret Thatcher Center!

FREE TIBET, FREE EAST TURKESTAN, AND UNITED MONGOLIA!

Lady Thatcher deserves such an honor. Thatcher rescued your economy from a decades long decline. It is a fitting honor for a wonderful PM.

Why is the university squeamish about accepting donation from an arms dealer?

If it is to do with ethics, the university should then ban its students from working for weapons manufacturers, such as BAE Systems, EADS and others.

When Said Business School's first director, John Kay resigned in 1999, he complained about 'the lethal combination of lethargy and snobbery that is causing Oxford to sink into a morass of committees, inertia and muddle.”

Typo: management schools are supposed to be bastions ethical business nowadays.

Missing an "of" I believe

I actually liked the school having Said in the name; gave Oxford a more international flair.

As for selling arms to Saudi Arabia, so what?

Otherwise, regardless of political affiliation, Margaret Thatcher was a notable personality in post-war Britain.

Who remembers Heath (aside from possibly lyrics in a George Harrison song)?

And, Ms. Thatcher was keen on business; and from a family of small business proprieters (her dad at least own a couple of grocery stores; further back the family was into shoes I think). She was also a chemist.

So, political notable, atuned to small business, as well as trained in the sciences. Regardless of what views there are on her political policies, her background certainly seems to represent a positive role model.

Since Baroness Thatcher still lives, has anyone asked her about HER opinion on this matter?

"Baroness Thatcher is not a despot, of course..." - I'm sure the families of the thousands of murdered civilians in Chile will be happy The Economist has so decreed, especially in the light that the old man stole millions and stored them in Washington DC's Briggs Bank, and became the darling of the British arms industry bigwigs - many of them financial supporters of Mother Thatcher's brutal internal domestic policies. To this day, people from her own hometown despise her for ridding the country of their industries, hollowing out the UK to become little more than a superpower wannabe following the heels of their USA masters (sort of like Robin is to Batman or a bumbling but dangerously armed Sancho Panza to a demented Don Quixote), and earning trillions for the upper classes in the London financial district, exporting weapons to dictatorships that can pay cash, and not much more for the rest of the peasants. Saddam Hussein may have been a "very bad man" but a lot of his financial support came from the UK during the Thatcher years. It wasn't until his badly planned and ill advised invasion of Kuwait, and the subsequent destruction of UK interests in the area, that cost him his almost inevitable knighthood. She's no "despot" to The Economist, but then again, neither was Hitler to the Nazis, Stalin to the communists, or Mao to the peasants during the Cultural Revolution. Despicable acts of inhumanity are all papered and glossed over with the right mouthpiece in place. Pravda, Rodong Sinmun, Granma, Izvestia, People's Daily, among others, all found logical and convincing explanations and rationale for the assassination and destruction of internal enemies - some still do - and are experts at distorting reality. And The Economist can no longer be excluded from this exclusive club.

If you depend on your selective memory to invoke the past "achievements" of dead leaders, especially when you haven't lived in the lands where your Heroes ruled, then your comments have little and no substance to stand on. Neither Thatcher not Reagan defeated communism. The people in those countries did - especially those who have no name, who were killed and forgotten. Who remembers father Jerzy Popiełuszko for example? Where are the monuments in London to the many nameless members of Solidarnosc who faced their oppressors? Not like Thatcher or Reagan - comfortably behind heaviliy defended bunkers, unlike Boris Yeltsin who fought back in the streets of Moscow against the communists? Those are the real people, not the masks, who fought and defeated communism. So be more careful how you pick you r heroes and why. Thatcher was and is a cold blooded murderer with a purple robe and a vast army of yellow journalists backing her up.

Maybe one of these days when she's due for a bath in the mental ward she lives in,when she's not too doped up to prevent the blood curdling screams of a mentally tormented woman.

Obviously you don't work for a living - you are either a rich foreigner who got a big tax break in London, or a well born and bred Lord who made it big moving your factories to China and getting rid of those annoying countrymen of yours - commoners - who wanted to be able to afford heat in the Winter. The nerve of those yobs! If ye don't eat yer meat you can't have any pudding.. How can ye have any pudding if ye dont eat yer meat?

Well in that case, and following the infallible logic of The Economist, let's build an even bigger wing and name it the Hitler Honors Center for Economic Progress. After all, he DID take a defeated Germany, turned it into a world power in less than a decade, got rid of unemployment, kept the streets clean, firms like Siemens and VW made billions in profits, and was the only country to severely beat up Britain senseless TWICE in a period of roughly 25 years. Not even Britain's superior archenemy and rival, the French had been able to achieve that! Unfortunately (and this could also be explained away like the rest of Thatcher's naughty things)... Hitler had this obsession about ovens and certain types of people.... not unlike Thatcher and the Irish...

Actually, (not suprisingly) I work 60 hours per week and am not rich. I operate on a weekly budget and have little extra income. Nor am I a "Lord" (I live in the United States, where Reagan/Thatcher philosophy led to over 25 years of economic expansion). The radical Left just cannot comprehend that those of us in the middle class believe in individual freedom and accept individual responsibility. If I don't produce for society I go hungry. Those that do produce deserve to become rich, and when they do, they generate jobs for peopel like you and I. You need to read Ayn Rand. But, beware, it has lots of big words you may understand.

"You need to read Ayn Rand"

There is not a single human being on the earth who needs to read Ayn Rand.

"Not like Thatcher or Reagan - comfortably behind heaviliy defended bunkers, "

Heavily defended bunkers, like the Grand Hotel in Brighton??

Whatever you think of the way Thatcher governed, the statement that she was not a "despot" is completely uncontroversial. She ruled because she was elected, and she continued to rule because she continued to win elections.

Her legacy is a fascinating and, as the article acknowledges, controversial topic. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to scroll down from an interesting article like this and read the thoughts and input of the Economist's undoubtedly educated and well-informed readership, rather than having to scroll past endless rants about Hitler.

I hope you mean there is not a human being on earth that cannot take the philosophies related to driving to succeed and pushing towards perfection, and leave the irrational concepts of the type of person it takes to achieve greatness who needs to read Rand.

Naming anything in Oxford after Margaret Thatcher is surely far less controversial than the Rhodes Scholarship, named after the infamous Cecil Rhodes (of Rhodesia notoriety)?

Given that a very high proportion of students attending Said are foreign, it would be most appropriate that something be named after Thatcher. Thatcher is held in high regard almost everywhere sensible people live, except the UK. It also seems the politically correct and ossified Oxford given the earlier snub and possibly the writer of the article given its tone. Most of her good work was undone by Blair and Brown, but without her the UK would have been in a worse situation than Greece is today. I am all for it.