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

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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.

Looking at it dispassionately I agree that we deseperately needed to change and I agree with your diagnosis. But thatcher did it all in such a nasty sneering doctrinaire fashion. And it really was about destroying anything socialist. I still remember her being interviewed about the way the police had stepped out of line (again), and hr response was 'the british police - arent they marvellous' an attitude to oversight that paved the way for the sneering arrogance that allowed Hillsborough to happen. Even her own party stabbed her in the back in the. The picture of her crying for herslf in the back of the car leaving downing street still fills me with pleasure.

I am all for harsh reform, if applied even-handedly. Thatcher and her ilk were no nation savers. The short sharp shock to crack crime; unemployment as a tool to control the proles; the sale of council houses at a knock down price; and the loadsamoney attitude and its associated sneering; no, you can shove thatcher as far as I'm concerned.

All that said, had she been a tough but compassionate reformer she'd have not got in. Alan Clark had some insight, recognising that she appealed to the masochism in many males.

 

[Hamilton]

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.

Maggie took a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Ok, it was a nut that needed fixing, but nevertheless she left pain and misery in her wake and showed contempt for those suggesting other ways of doing things.

 

[portlock seagull]

Maggie took a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Ok, it was a nut that needed fixing, but nevertheless she left pain and misery in her wake and showed contempt for those suggesting other ways of doing things.

Arguably case in every government. Worldwide. Since Adam. Winners and losers. V.subjectice. Et al.

 

[looney]

Huh, not much!

Not labour does not equal tory.

 

[portlock seagull]

Looking at it dispassionately I agree that we deseperately needed to change and I agree with your diagnosis. But thatcher did it all in such a nasty sneering doctrinaire fashion. And it really was about destroying anything socialist. I still remember her being interviewed about the way the police had stepped out of line (again), and hr response was 'the british police - arent they marvellous' an attitude to oversight that paved the way for the sneering arrogance that allowed Hillsborough to happen. Even her own party stabbed her in the back in the. The picture of her crying for herslf in the back of the car leaving downing street still fills me with pleasure.

I am all for harsh reform, if applied even-handedly. Thatcher and her ilk were no nation savers. The short sharp shock to crack crime; unemployment as a tool to control the proles; the sale of council houses at a knock down price; and the loadsamoney attitude and its associated sneering; no, you can shove thatcher as far as I'm concerned.

All that said, had she been a tough but compassionate reformer she'd have not got in. Alan Clark had some insight, recognising that she appealed to the masochism in many males.

All fair comment except in no way can one person can be held accountable or responsible for all of that. Simply ludicrous to suggest any one person is to blame. Especially when millions benefited.

 

[Gwylan]

Thatcher (Major and Blair too) had one big advantage that no other PM had ever had - the bounty of North Sea oil.

I wonder what the UK would be liked if Sunny Jim had called the election in 78 (when he was ahead in the polls) and won. Would a Labour party boosted by oil revenues presided over a boom period or would internal politics have destroyed it? I suspect the latter but it would make for an interesting alternative history.

Either way, I read about Norway's $1.1tn oil fund and realise that the UK could have had that if Thatcher hadn't squandered it on tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

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.

Had she been a stronger Prime Minister, she would have closed the mines but done something for the Communities which were affected by those closures. What actually happened was at best stupid and thoughtless, at worst nasty and vindictive. I tend to think towards the nasty and vindictive. I think most people would accept that the mines needed dealing with, and that the miners needed dealing with - I was no great fan of Arthur Scargill either. And I think plenty of people from a wide range of political backgrounds would agree that she took the "breaking" of the miners too far.

Where there is discord let us bring harmony is what she said on the day she was elected. Had she really been that strong a leader, she would have been able to do that.

 

[beorhthelm]

Either way, I read about Norway's $1.1tn oil fund and realise that the UK could have had that if Thatcher hadn't squandered it on tax cuts for the wealthy.

another government would have spent the windfall somewhere else, if someone was forward looking perhaps on infrastructure, but it would have been spent. we are not Norway, with a population 1/10th ours they literally didnt (dont) know what to do with their oil revenue. and it should be noted the economy still benefited from the oil over the years, its just been spread out via oil companies (shareholders being our pensions) rather than sitting in one large easily identified pot.

 

[Weststander]

Thatcher (Major and Blair too) had one big advantage that no other PM had ever had - the bounty of North Sea oil.

I wonder what the UK would be liked if Sunny Jim had called the election in 78 (when he was ahead in the polls) and won. Would a Labour party boosted by oil revenues presided over a boom period or would internal politics have destroyed it? I suspect the latter but it would make for an interesting alternative history.

Either way, I read about Norway's $1.1tn oil fund and realise that the UK could have had that if Thatcher hadn't squandered it on tax cuts for the wealthy.

Norway comparisons are nonsensical. They had the same lucky position as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Brunei. A tiny population (5M), but with colossal oil and gas reserves. In addition, Norway did not have the huge national debt from the WW’s, a 55M population, and the oldest industriised infrastructure in the World. Tax and duty from the UK’s oil and gas simply had to go to partly prop up the annual balance of payments deficits in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and 00’s

By contrast initially poor Norway had a blank sheet and a tiny population. The resulting £1T state trust fund will see them remain a very wealthy country for centuries to come.

 

[btnbelle]

Had she been a stronger Prime Minister, she would have closed the mines but done something for the Communities which were affected by those closures. What actually happened was at best stupid and thoughtless, at worst nasty and vindictive. I tend to think towards the nasty and vindictive. I think most people would accept that the mines needed dealing with, and that the miners needed dealing with - I was no great fan of Arthur Scargill either. And I think plenty of people from a wide range of political backgrounds would agree that she took the "breaking" of the miners too far.

Where there is discord let us bring harmony is what she said on the day she was elected. Had she really been that strong a leader, she would have been able to do that.

Maybe her reaction towards the miners had something to do with the way they behaved. We all get some things wrong sometimes but the mines needed to be closed.

Perhaps she could have done more and reinvest in the north but that does not take away what she did achieve and the correct decisions that she made. She was strong to stand up to the unions in the 80's.

 

[Icy Gull]

I voted for Thatcher, as we needed a strong leader who would not be cowed by the unions who were too powerful at the time, but there are some very interesting and well reasoned viewpoints from both sides on this thread. A labour government getting in when Thatcher did would have been a disaster imo. (Although I accept some think she was too, Labour were not capable of dealing with the unions though)

Blair was Tory light wasn’t he? Surprised he has polled so many votes.

 

[Live by the sea]

For charisma and strong leadership, has to be Mrs Thatcher, followed by Tony Blair. At least they acted like Prime ministers .

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

All fair comment except in no way can one person can be held accountable or responsible for all of that. Simply ludicrous to suggest any one person is to blame. Especially when millions benefited.

Apologies. Of course. She could not have acted alone, and she had a happy band with her. I always had a feeling many of them, the old guard, never really accepted her, though. Grocer's daughter, a bit gauche, and 'female'. One good thing to come out of it is the party now elects its leader rather than distilling one from a cigar smoke- and brandy-filled room.

And also, despite my loathing of the thatcher era, I have no problem with many of the bues these days. That is partly due to Blair - Cameron wanted to emulate him, and had everything apart from policies and leadership skills, but the game had been changed. A pragmatic sensibe tory leader may well emerge after May. Javid perhaps?

By contrast labour are now in a total mess, with a weak leader who is paradoxically untouchable owing to the way the party elect their leaders.

Funny old world. Cheers.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Interesting that the two most villified PM's are running away with this. Just shows you not everybody hates Thatcher or thinks Blair is a war criminal.

They did both have two big advantages:-

First they both had a very secure position as PM, both in their own party and in the country (even though Maggie may well have been voted out if it hadn't been for the Falklands) so that actually gave them time to get things done that they felt needed doing

And second they had a pretty ineffectual opposition that was to a large degree unelectable.

Plus they both went on too long; if they had both left a couple of years or so before they did they would have been more positively remembered.