Who is the greatest prime minister of the last 65 years?

[Finnegan]

[Guest MattP]

I have abstained for now because at the time of writing Caroline Lucas MP hasn't had any terms as PM.

Keep up buddy Nutty Nat replaced Crazy Caz a couple of years back.

[Rincewind]

If you click the bit in brackets after the PM's name, you can see who voted for them. 

 

No great surprises....though you seem to have voted for Maggie, not Churchill! 

Ken is not the solitary Brownite.

 

Would be interesting to hear the case for some of the less obvious, minority choices, assuming those votes aren't all meant humorously.... e.g. Macmillan? Wilson? 

thought i had voted Atlee

[Guest Col city fan]

Thatcher for me. At least she had an ideology. And the minerals to stick with it. Whether you agree or disagree with the New Right thinking, I can't stand contemporary politics where image exists over substance so much that it stinks.

What do the parties stand for? What is their paradigm? Their ideology?

It's hardly surprising there is so much voter apathy these days.

[Harry - LCFC]

Thatcher for me. At least she had an ideology. And the minerals to stick with it. Whether you agree or disagree with the New Right thinking, I can't stand contemporary politics where image exists over substance so much that it stinks.

What do the parties stand for? What is their paradigm? Their ideology?

It's hardly surprising there is so much voter apathy these days.

 

I'm not trying to compare the two here but it does illustrate my point fairly well I think. Hitler had an ideology and stuck to it rigidly.

 

I don't think greatness can be assessed entirely by how well one sticks to a set of principles. The impact of the individual's time in office is surely what matters here.

[Stadt]

Thatcher for me. At least she had an ideology. And the minerals to stick with it. Whether you agree or disagree with the New Right thinking, I can't stand contemporary politics where image exists over substance so much that it stinks.

What do the parties stand for? What is their paradigm? Their ideology?

It's hardly surprising there is so much voter apathy these days.

col city fan, chair of the committee of defensive midfielders.

[Webbo]

It's hard for us to judge PMs we can't remember/weren't born at the time.

 

If you look at the results of the 1950 and 1951 election though it seems that the policies Atlee stood on in 1945 weren't that popular 5 years later. If you compare that to Mrs T who was re elected twice with healthy majorities it appears she was more popular with the voters of the time.

[Alf Bentley]

It's hard for us to judge PMs we can't remember/weren't born at the time.

 

If you look at the results of the 1950 and 1951 election though it seems that the policies Atlee stood on in 1945 weren't that popular 5 years later. If you compare that to Mrs T who was re elected twice with healthy majorities it appears she was more popular with the voters of the time.

 

Fact check (source: Wikipedia): % of national vote

 

1945: Lab 47.7%, Con 36.2%

1950: Lab 46.1%, Con 35.2%

1951: Lab 48.8%, Con 44.3%

(1951 saw the Tories win despite Labour getting 1m+ more votes than them - this happened the other way round in Feb 1974; in 1951, Labour also won more votes than any party at any election other than the Tories in 1992 - and a higher percentage than any party in the modern era, I think)

 

1979: Con 43.9%, Lab 36.9%

1983: Con 42.4%, Lab 27.6%, SDP/Lib 25.4%

1987: Con 42.2%, Lab 30.8%, SDP/Lib 22.6%

(So, the Tory vote % actually FELL slightly in both 1983 & 1987 - the landslides were largely due to a divided opposition....though both main parties can only dream of getting 42% in 2015)

 

That's First Past the Post for you....

 

Could be some interesting discussions after this election if, say the Tories get the most votes but we end up with a Labour-led government, a very feasible scenario.

Other highly feasible scenarios: SNP winning 90%+ of Scottish seats with about 45% of the vote; UKIP & Greens winning 20-25% of the vote between them, but getting about 1% of the MPs.....

 

Of course, during the Alternative Vote referendum, Cameron led the campaign to keep First Past the Post, while Miliband & Clegg campaigned for electoral reform......

[Alf Bentley]

col city fan, chair of the committee of defensive midfielders.

 

At least he "has an ideology" (Cattermolite ideology) and "the minerals to stick with it"... 

[Mark_w]

Does this poll only take into account what the Prime Minister did in that role in the last 65 years?

If so can someone please explain the case for Churchill's second spell to me? I don't get it.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Does this poll only take into account what the Prime Minister did in that role in the last 65 years?

If so can someone please explain the case for Churchill's second spell to me? I don't get it.

It's thevsame for Atlee really, tbh I think the timeframe has kinda gone out of the window/it's become 75 years.

[Guest MattP]

Couldn't really be more stereotypcial this could it?

 

Out of the top three fighting it out we've got two Tories who won wars and a Labour candidate who created the welfare state.

[Alf Bentley]

Couldn't really be more stereotypcial this could it?

 

Out of the top three fighting it out we've got two Tories who won wars and a Labour candidate who created the welfare state.

 

True in a way....

 

For the sake of balance, it should be added that:

- Attlee was badly wounded on active service in WW1, and was the penultimate officer evacuated from Suvla Bay during the Galipoli campaign, according to Wiki

- Attlee was Deputy PM under Churchill during WW2 and was instrumental in getting Chamberlain replaced by Churchill (see below)

- For several decades until Thatcher, the Tories supported and maintained the welfare state established by Labour

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_Debate#8_May:_Motion_and_vote

8 May: Motion and vote[edit]

After Churchill's speech the House divided. The motion was "that this House do now adjourn"^[10] and constituted a vote of confidence.

Yes votes 281 No votes 200

The Government's notional majority was 213 but 39 Government supporters voted with the Opposition, and some others abstained. The Government still won the vote by 281 to 200, but the catastrophic fall in the Government's majority put great pressure on it. The Labour MP Josiah Wedgwood led the singing of Rule Britannia, joined by Conservative rebel Harold Macmillan of the Noes; this gave way to cries of "Go!" as Chamberlain left the Chamber.^[11]

9–10 May: A new Prime Minister emerges[edit] 9 May: Chamberlain must go[edit]

The following day, 9 May, Chamberlain attempted to form a National Coalition Government. In talks at Downing Street with Lord Halifax and Churchill he indicated that he was quite ready to resign if that was necessary for Labour to enter such a Government. Attlee and Arthur Greenwood then joined the meeting, and when asked, indicated that they must first consult their party (then in conference at Bournemouth) but it was unlikely they could serve in a government led by Chamberlain; they probably would be able to serve under some other Conservative.

9 May: Halifax is a non-runner[edit]

After Attlee and Greenwood left Chamberlain asked whom he should recommend to the King as his successor.

The version of events given by Churchill^[12] is that Chamberlain's preference for Halifax was obvious (Churchill implies that the spat between Churchill and the Labour benches the previous night had something to do with this); there was a long silence which Halifax eventually broke by saying he did not believe he could lead the government effectively as a member of the House of Lords instead of the House of Commons. Churchill’s version gets the date wrong, and fails to mention the presence of David Margesson, the government Chief Whip.

Halifax's account omits the dramatic pause and gives an additional reason: "PM said I was the man mentioned as most acceptable. I said it would be hopeless position. If I was not in charge of the war (operations) and if I didn't lead in the House, I should be a cypher. I thought Winston was a better choice. Winston did not demur." According to Halifax, Margesson then confirmed that feeling in the House of Commons had been veering to Churchill.

In a letter to Churchill written that night,^[13] Robert Boothby asserted that parliamentary opinion was hardening against Halifax, claiming in a postscript that according to Clement Davies "Attlee & Greenwood are unable to distinguish between the PM & Halifax and arenot prepared to serve under the latter."

10 May: Churchill becomes Prime Minister[edit]

On the morning of 10 May, Germany invaded the Netherlands and Belgium. Chamberlain initially felt that a change of Government at such a time would be inappropriate, but upon being given confirmation that Labour would not serve under him, announced to the War Cabinet his intention to resign.^[14] Scarcely more than three days after he had opened the debate, Chamberlain then went to the Palace to resign as Prime Minister. (Despite resigning as PM, he continued to be the leader of the Conservative Party.) He explained to the King why Halifax (whom the King thought the obvious candidate)^[15] did not want to become Prime Minister. The King then sent for Churchill and asked him to form a new government; according to Churchill, there was no stipulation that this be a coalition government.

[Webbo]

Fact check (source: Wikipedia): % of national vote

 

1945: Lab 47.7%, Con 36.2%

1950: Lab 46.1%, Con 35.2%

1951: Lab 48.8%, Con 44.3%

(1951 saw the Tories win despite Labour getting 1m+ more votes than them - this happened the other way round in Feb 1974; in 1951, Labour also won more votes than any party at any election other than the Tories in 1992 - and a higher percentage than any party in the modern era, I think)

 

1979: Con 43.9%, Lab 36.9%

1983: Con 42.4%, Lab 27.6%, SDP/Lib 25.4%

1987: Con 42.2%, Lab 30.8%, SDP/Lib 22.6%

(So, the Tory vote % actually FELL slightly in both 1983 & 1987 - the landslides were largely due to a divided opposition....though both main parties can only dream of getting 42% in 2015)

 

That's First Past the Post for you....

 

Could be some interesting discussions after this election if, say the Tories get the most votes but we end up with a Labour-led government, a very feasible scenario.

Other highly feasible scenarios: SNP winning 90%+ of Scottish seats with about 45% of the vote; UKIP & Greens winning 20-25% of the vote between them, but getting about 1% of the MPs.....

 

Of course, during the Alternative Vote referendum, Cameron led the campaign to keep First Past the Post, while Miliband & Clegg campaigned for electoral reform......

I actually saw that when I was checking before I posted. I knew if anyone was going to catch me out it'd be you.

[l444ry]

It's hard for us to judge PMs we can't remember/weren't born at the time.

 

If you look at the results of the 1950 and 1951 election though it seems that the policies Atlee stood on in 1945 weren't that popular 5 years later. If you compare that to Mrs T who was re elected twice with healthy majorities it appears she was more popular with the voters of the time.

Very good point Webbo. The same goes for the Churchill. It was a remarkable result that the recent war leader would be rejected so readily. It is a plain as day that the electorate came to the conclusion that they didn't sacrifice all that they did in the war just to return to the same old Tory pre-war ways.

[David Guiza]

Churchill will always get huge amount of votes in anything like this, for obvious reasons. But he was simply the right man at the right time, he knew how to fight, in just about every sense of the word, and God only knows what may have happened without people like him. As a PM though, he really wasn't anything spectacular by any means.

I only have any real knowledge of Brown, Blair and Cameron due to my age (23). But from anything I've ever read, watched etc Attley seemed like the greatest, the NHS, moving Britain into a modern nation etc.

[Webbo]

Very good point Webbo. The same goes for the Churchill. It was a remarkable result that the recent war leader would be rejected so readily. It is a plain as day that the electorate came to the conclusion that they didn't sacrifice all that they did in the war just to return to the same old Tory pre-war ways.

I didn't vote for Churchill.

[Alf Bentley]

I actually saw that when I was checking before I posted. I knew if anyone was going to catch me out it'd be you.

 

You're a very naughty man! 

 

Some of those stats surprised me, I must admit....didn't know that the Liberals were down to 2.5% in 1951. Will make 2015 seem like a good year for them!

[Guest MattP]

Very good point Webbo. The same goes for the Churchill. It was a remarkable result that the recent war leader would be rejected so readily. It is a plain as day that the electorate came to the conclusion that they didn't sacrifice all that they did in the war just to return to the same old Tory pre-war ways.

 

Of course the problem with this was after 5 years of Attlee the people then did decide to go back to the pre-war ways of the Tories. Then five years later again rejected Clement Attlee (and this time actually a proper increased victory).

 

If he was that great you have to wonder how he managed to lose two elections pretty much immediately after all the wonderful things he did.

You're a very naughty man! 

 

Some of those stats surprised me, I must admit....didn't know that the Liberals were down to 2.5% in 1951. Will make 2015 seem like a good year for them!

 

Is that the true Liberal party Ken keeps going on about? Does he know they merged with the Tories?

[Carl the Llama]

Keep up buddy Nutty Nat replaced Crazy Caz a couple of years back.

That's no way to talk about the future Prime Minister.  I must ask you to address Caroline Lucas MP with more respect than that.

[l444ry]

I didn't vote for Churchill.

I wasn't aware that I'd suggested you did, strangely enough!

[Jon the Hat]

I have never understood the controversy around the Belgrano.  A warship in the theatre of battle is a legitimate target, regardless of what direction it is headed in. 

[l444ry]

I have never understood the controversy around the Belgrano.  A warship in the theatre of battle is a legitimate target, regardless of what direction it is headed in. 

This might be true Jon but the Conquerer had been shadowing the Belgrano for a couple of days whilst it was INSIDE the exclusion zone. Why didn't they torpedo it then if it was such a threat? And more to the point, why declare an exclusion zone at all if you attack targets outside it?

[MooseBreath]

<3

[Guest MattP]

<3

Beautiful. Never stopped trying to raise the bar.