Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Who was the best British Prime Minister of the last 60 or so years?

Who was the best British Prime Minister of the last 60 or so years?

  • Theresa May

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • David Cameron

    Votes: 8 2.8%

  • Gordon Brown

    Votes: 3 1.1%

  • Tony Blair

    Votes: 72 25.6%

  • John Major

    Votes: 9 3.2%

  • Margaret Thatcher

    Votes: 142 50.5%

  • James Callaghan

    Votes: 3 1.1%

  • Harold Wilson

    Votes: 19 6.8%

  • Edward Heath

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Harold Wilson

    Votes: 15 5.3%

  • Alec Douglas-Home

    Votes: 2 0.7%

  • Harold Macmillan

    Votes: 6 2.1%

  • Anthony Eden

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Total voters
    281


DavidinSouthampton

DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
16,582
btnbelle said:
Margaret Thatcher gave people a chance to make something out of their lives.

Every Prime Minister will have faults but she did the country, the people and her party a massive amount of good.

She is the leader we need today instead of the two parties on either side of the house of commons.
Click to expand...

She did some of the people a lot of good.

She consigned an awful lot of other people, of communities, of regions to the dustbin. If people could afford to buy their council houses, then fair enough. But by not allowing councils to spend the money they received to replace housing stock, she made the housing situation a great del worse.

We spent a few days in Durham a few years ago - a lovely part of the world. But driving round some of the hinterland, former mining villages where the mine(s) had closed and absolutely nothing had been done to replace the economic presence that they represented, was one of my most depressing journeys of recent years. Whole communities ignored - Thatcher didn't do them much good.
 




btnbelle

btnbelle

New member
Apr 26, 2017
1,438
Brighton Lines said:
How did she do that then ?

I think there may be a rather large number of folk in many areas of the country that might want to offer a contrary opinion on that one.
Click to expand...

She sold off council houses so many families could own their own home. It is not her fault that Blair/Brown did nothing to replace the housing stock.

She sold British Telecom and Gas etc. and if people invested well they could make money and use it to fund a business or invest further.

It is the same old story... some people don't take up an offer or spend their money unwisely and complain they have nothing. Mrs Thatcher gave the opportunity to those wise enough to take it.
 


B

biddles911

New member
May 12, 2014
348
Biscuit said:
I agree it was one hell of a mistake. One he's always accepted full responsibility for. Whatever anybody says Blair has been consist in his argument that he felt it was the right decision given the information he had at the time, and the world is better off without Saddam.

I guess when you're in the hot seat for as long as he was you're bound to get one of the massive decisions wrong eventually. It was the biggest decision he had to make as PM, and he got it wrong. I think it's perfectly possible to accept his failings with Iraq but still acknowledge the great things he achieved domestically during his Premiership.
Click to expand...

Not a popular view but I think it’s very debatable whether he got it wrong!

Saddam had been putting two fingers up to the international community for years and the consensus at the time was that he certainly did have WOMD.

You’ve only got to look at the extraordinary and ongoing mess that is Syria to see that non-intervention can be as bad (or even worse) than intervention.

The problem with Iraq was the mishandling of the aftermath which is largely down to Bush and his idiot cohorts rather than Blair.

Probably a B minus for Iraq but would personally give him an A for the rest.

Still think Maggie would be my choice over Blair by a short head however.

Both put all their useless successors in the shade.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


btnbelle

btnbelle

New member
Apr 26, 2017
1,438
DavidinSouthampton said:
She did some of the people a lot of good.

She consigned an awful lot of other people, of communities, of regions to the dustbin. If people could afford to buy their council houses, then fair enough. But by not allowing councils to spend the money they received to replace housing stock, she made the housing situation a great del worse.

We spent a few days in Durham a few years ago - a lovely part of the world. But driving round some of the hinterland, former mining villages where the mine(s) had closed and absolutely nothing had been done to replace the economic presence that they represented, was one of my most depressing journeys of recent years. Whole communities ignored - Thatcher didn't do them much good.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you prove the point of a strong Prime Minister. She acted and closed the mines. They could not have stayed open forever. Someone had to be brave enough to take that decision. The communities did not help them selves protesting rather than finding new pastures to make their futures. A balance view that all was not brilliant is fine but a strong leader makes decisions for the right reasons. We all sometimes have to cut our losses and tread new paths. Businesses do this every day to survive. Governments who are too fearful to make a decision and act are not strong.
 


btnbelle

btnbelle

New member
Apr 26, 2017
1,438
nicko31 said:
The 80's was like a bankrupt sale, the government just sold everything, and cheap. Thatcher can thank the Argies, a good old fashioned war saved her
Click to expand...

It was what she thought, was the right thing to do. A Labour government had just tried to ruin our finances and she wanted to put it right. I am sure if she had money to spare she would have not sold any assets.

Gordon Brown sold gold dirt cheap in the good times.

Many people have sold much loved assets to raise cash when they need it.
 












Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
63,926
Withdean area
biddles911 said:
Not a popular view but I think it’s very debatable whether he got it wrong!

Saddam had been putting two fingers up to the international community for years and the consensus at the time was that he certainly did have WOMD.

You’ve only got to look at the extraordinary and ongoing mess that is Syria to see that non-intervention can be as bad (or even worse) than intervention.

The problem with Iraq was the mishandling of the aftermath which is largely down to Bush and his idiot cohorts rather than Blair.

Probably a B minus for Iraq but would personally give him an A for the rest.

Still think Maggie would be my choice over Blair by a short head however.

Both put all their useless successors in the shade.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Syria has had a mass of intervention, with Iran and the super powers supplying arms, experts, bombing the place. The last thing needed would be another Blair/Bush style Crusade, adding fuel to the already intense hatred towards 'infidels' touching Arab soil. The Middle East is a hornets nest of trouble, when one murderous regime appears defeated, but it creates another.
 




B

biddles911

New member
May 12, 2014
348
Weststander said:
Syria has had a mass of intervention, with Iran and the super powers supplying arms, experts, bombing the place. The last thing needed would be another Blair/Bush style Crusade, adding fuel to the already intense hatred towards 'infidels' touching Arab soil. The Middle East is a hornets nest of trouble, when one murderous regime appears defeated, but it creates another.
Click to expand...

Intervention in Syria was pretty late in the day though when it looked as if ISIS might topple Assad. Not saying early intervention would have been the right answer but it’s hard to see how it could have made matters much worse than they are now.

Intervention can work e.g. it worked in the Balkans conflict, albeit rather late.

I agree that the Middle East is a terrible hornets’ nest. I just don’t think it’s that clear that the initial intervention in Iraq was such a bad decision....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 




Durlston

Durlston

"Garlic bread!?"
NSC Patron
Jul 15, 2009
9,765
Haywards Heath
Too young to really remember her but my parents said she was the best Prime Minister of all time and so many have ruined the country (Blair, Brown) since so I voted Maggie Thatcher. :thumbsup:
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
49,963
Faversham
btnbelle said:
She sold assets to repair our debt.
Click to expand...

No she didn't. She sold our (taxpayers) assets to destroy socialism. And she succeed. If your agenda is tory, she is the queen - setting us on a path to private everything (schools, health included) that her successors have not had the guts to see through.

I deplore it, btw. Destroyed British way of life. Now the prancing ninnies of this world hold sway. With all their charmless triumphalism and gloating.

That said, we needed some reform. But, to paraphrase Richard Richard....I just wish ....everything....could have been...completely different.
 


btnbelle

btnbelle

New member
Apr 26, 2017
1,438
Harry Wilson's tackle said:
No she didn't. She sold our (taxpayers) assets to destroy socialism. And she succeed. If your agenda is tory, she is the queen - setting us on a path to private everything (schools, health included) that her successors have not had the guts to see through.

I deplore it, btw. Destroyed British way of life. Now the prancing ninnies of this world hold sway. With all their charmless triumphalism and gloating.

That said, we needed some reform. But, to paraphrase Richard Richard....I just wish ....everything....could have been...completely different.
Click to expand...

I have no real political agenda really. My vote floats to my choice of the day....

But Maggie is the best Prime Minister I have ever had.....
 




Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
63,926
Withdean area
biddles911 said:
Intervention in Syria was pretty late in the day though when it looked as if ISIS might topple Assad. Not saying early intervention would have been the right answer but it’s hard to see how it could have made matters much worse than they are now.

Intervention can work e.g. it worked in the Balkans conflict, albeit rather late.

I agree that the Middle East is a terrible hornets’ nest. I just don’t think it’s that clear that the initial intervention in Iraq was such a bad decision....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agree about the Balkans. Much of the genocide was carried out in front of useless UN 'peace keeping' corp. NATO therefore intervened later in bombing the Serb aggressors in the Kosovo conflict and it worked. Similarly, Rwanda was crying out for the same.

But the Islamic world is a different proposition. The warped propaganda of Bin Laden, has twisted all things Western, to be a rallying cry for murder in Paris, Manchester, Stockholm, New York. Plus any intervention by us in Syria, is countered by Iranian/Russian intervention in Syria on Assad's side.
 


Sorrel

Sorrel

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
2,743
Back in East Sussex
The 'best' Prime Minister would be probably one that you didn't really notice and just quietly got on with government. Not sure any of them count on that front.

I do feel a bit sorry for Anthony Eden; all those years waiting to be Conservative Leader, with Churchill ill and not really suited to being a peacetime leader but not able to do anything. Then, when he finally gets his chance everything goes wrong within two years.

Eden had a very privileged upbringing - but not necessarily a pleasant one (in one of his autobiographies I've read he states that he can't remember his father ever having a conversation with him about anything other than horses) and he had a very engaged Great War - in action for most of it, with two of his brothers and almost all his friends killed.
 


Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
63,926
Withdean area
Harry Wilson's tackle said:
No she didn't. She sold our (taxpayers) assets to destroy socialism. And she succeed. If your agenda is tory, she is the queen - setting us on a path to private everything (schools, health included) that her successors have not had the guts to see through.

I deplore it, btw. Destroyed British way of life. Now the prancing ninnies of this world hold sway. With all their charmless triumphalism and gloating.

That said, we needed some reform. But, to paraphrase Richard Richard....I just wish ....everything....could have been...completely different.
Click to expand...

Putting the 1979 Conservative Government aside for a moment. The UK in 1979 was bust, with huge longterm structural problems. Not the fault of one party, but a perfect storm of huge WW2 debt, weak governments of both parties, inept senior management industry who hadn't modernised and some very strong trade unions with tunnel vision for their interests alone. It wasn't a brief economic storm to be rode out. The country produced poor quality products beaten by an ever increasing list of up and coming nations, big industries such as shipbuilding faced a lack of orders as other countries produced better and cheaper, and 10,000,000's working days were lost per annum in strikes.

The feel of even places such as Brighton and Hove seafront was of things being rundown, due to a lack of public money over decades. Anecdotally, several British music artists in that era, have spoken of Britain being bleak, economically bleak.

The Conservative government was a reaction to all that, with a hard line monetarist ethos initially, then a boom.

In hindsight, I'd say an ideological sledge hammer to crack a chronically sick nut. There could've been a middle ground, but you might not have agreed with that either? What I have in mind is that we should've looked at targeting new niche industries such as specialist shipbuilding in the same way the Germans and Italians have and still do. I do think that over time most coal mines would have shut down. But the transition could have been far more gentle.

British way of life. I'm not sure if you meant the following, but the worst changes IMO have been everything is far more fast paced, 24-7 retail shopping, Sunday's millions have to work, those in SE England spend half their lives now paying huge mortgage payments (due to underlying high land values). To summarise a treadmill of working hard and materialism/consumerism. In fairness, many other countries have had to change too to survive. The French tried a 4 day short working week with collosal holiday leave, and it proved economically unsustainable. Macron is now modernising.
 


Hamilton

Hamilton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
12,454
Brighton
Thatcher?

Jesus wept. Too many people on here under twenty I assume.

Short term policies that genuinely hurt people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 




portlock seagull

portlock seagull

Why? Why us?
Jul 28, 2003
17,071
Hamilton said:
Thatcher?

Jesus wept. Too many people on here under twenty I assume.

Short term policies that genuinely hurt people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Disagree. Maggie revolutionised the UK for the better. Certainly embraced the inevitable challenges and got on with. People also forget the majority supported and the impact of global events that no politician can prevent but will always be blamed for.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here