who was britain's best prime minister?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

gladstone vs churchill vs lloyd george vs thatcher FITE!

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 10 February 2007 05:48 (eighteen years ago)

george gets points for hilarious description of woodrow wilson and clemenceau at versailles: "it was like sitting between jesus christ and napoleon."

churchill loses points for being every FDR-hating american right-winger's favorite WWII person.

thatcher gets points for liking "telstar." (okay, kidding)

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 10 February 2007 05:54 (eighteen years ago)

gladstone gets points for inspiring the name of donald duck's cousin.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 10 February 2007 05:54 (eighteen years ago)

Attlee, evidently.

― Tom May (Tom May), Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:02 (eighteen years ago)

^^^ yes

― Save The Whales (688), Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:05 (eighteen years ago)

Thirded

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:41 (eighteen years ago)

All a bunch of cunts with probable exception of Clem.

― I Tried to Use My Cock as a Bong (noodle vague), Saturday, 10 February 2007 11:52 (eighteen years ago)

Surely it is Winston Churchill? if it were not for him there would not be a Britain.

― The Real Dirty Vicar (dirtyvicar), Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:00 (eighteen years ago)

Pitt. The. Elder.

― vita susicivus (blueski), Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:00 (eighteen years ago)

I don't really buy the "Churchill saved the country" line, but even if it were true he was a right-wing shitbag.

― I Tried to Use My Cock as a Bong (noodle vague), Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:04 (eighteen years ago)

i like mah Robert Peel

― Frogm@n Henry (Frogm@n Henry), Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:12 (eighteen years ago)

heath

― Frogm@n Henry (Frogm@n Henry), Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:24 (eighteen years ago)

joek

― Frogm@n Henry (Frogm@n Henry), Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:24 (eighteen years ago)

Surely it is Winston Churchill? if it were not for him there would not be a Britain.

Him and 40 million other Britons. Attlee is the answer.

― Tom D. (Dada), Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:32 (eighteen years ago)

LORD PALMERSTON!

― naus de lekkerste..! (Robert T), Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:44 (eighteen years ago)

People reduce the war effort to one man, Churchill, whilst ignoring the fact of the Coalition Cabinet, and that most of the key players were Labour - Bevin, for example, and Attlee was Churchill's deputy.

― Tom May (Tom May), Saturday, 10 February 2007 14:06 (eighteen years ago)

Disraeli.

― The Ultimate Conclusion (lokar), Saturday, 10 February 2007 14:12 (eighteen years ago)

Thanks!

― Edward Trifle (Ned Trifle IV), Saturday, 10 February 2007 14:23 (eighteen years ago)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1365000/images/_1369188_atlee_pa150.jpg

― Edward Trifle (Ned Trifle IV), Saturday, 10 February 2007 14:24 (eighteen years ago)

No John Major street team massive represent yo? ;_;

― StanM (StanM), Saturday, 10 February 2007 14:27 (eighteen years ago)

(joek too!)

― StanM (StanM), Saturday, 10 February 2007 14:28 (eighteen years ago)

Loses big point for nobbing Edwina Currie.

― I Tried to Use My Cock as a Bong (noodle vague), Saturday, 10 February 2007 14:29 (eighteen years ago)

I'd go with Atlee as well. But this is a VERY SCARY question to ask the British public as a whole (answer clearly 1. Churchill 2. Thatcher 3. Everyone else miles behind).

It's quite a depressing question to ask yourself actually.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:00 (eighteen years ago)

Atlee obv. 1945 manifesto is pretty cool. i lived with a guy who read it out loud about once a week.

― acrobat (elwisty), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:05 (eighteen years ago)

Why "Atlee obviously"? I'm genuinely curious.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:22 (eighteen years ago)

The NHS maybe?

― chap (chap), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:35 (eighteen years ago)

Atlee obv. 1945 manifesto is pretty cool. i lived with a guy who read it out loud about once a week.
-- acrobat (p---_s---...), February 10th, 2007.

wow TELL US MORE! WHAT WAS SO GOOD ABOUT IT?

― pisces (piscesx), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:36 (eighteen years ago)

Post-war broadly-speaking social democratic consensus including founding the NHS, the creation of the welfare state, nationalisation of major industries and a general agreement across both main parties that these things were worth investing in. One that stayed in place until Thatcher even if bits of it were falling to pieces in the 70s.

(xpost to Alfred)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

Also widely held up as an example by Blair bashers on both sides as a way of showing how little he has supposedly achieved with far more time in government.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

i don't remember the specifics so much but there was lots of cradle to grave rhetoric. the feeling i got was sort of we are you're big helpful govermental dad and if you're ever in a spot of bother we'll give you a hand and stop anyone exploiting you.

― acrobat (elwisty), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:41 (eighteen years ago)

The best one is the one no one remembers. Or at least that's the criteria I would use.

― jel -- (jel), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

It's kinda like when they say "no one's noticed the referee" in football commentary.

― jel -- (jel), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:45 (eighteen years ago)

Atlee: creation of the welfare state, nationalisation of major industries

Yeah, that's what I had in mind, but can you explain how the latter in particular was a positive development? Again, I seek education since I know little about post-WWII English history.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 10 February 2007 16:45 (eighteen years ago)

That's all very well, but without Churchill, the pro-peace would have caved to Hitler in the summer of 1940 and then there would have been no welfare state or NHS.

― The Real Dirty Vicar (dirtyvicar), Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:05 (eighteen years ago)

In 1910, Churchill was promoted to Home Secretary, where he was to prove somewhat controversial. A famous photograph from the time shows the impetuous Churchill at the scene of the January 1911 Sidney Street Siege, peering around a corner to view a gun battle between cornered anarchists and Scots Guards. His role attracted much criticism. The building under siege caught fire and Churchill supported the decision to deny the fire brigade access, forcing the criminals to choose surrender or death

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:11 (eighteen years ago)

In 1920, as Secretary for War and Air, Churchill had responsibility for quelling the rebellion of Kurds and Arabs in British-occupied Iraq, which he achieved by authorising the use of poison gas. At the time he wrote, "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes… to create a lively terror"

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:12 (eighteen years ago)

He denigrated the father of the Indian independence movement, Mahatma Gandhi, as "a half-naked fakir" who "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back".

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:13 (eighteen years ago)

And so on and so forth.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Saturday, 10 February 2007 18:15 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, that's what I had in mind, but can you explain how the latter in particular was a positive development? Again, I seek education since I know little about post-WWII English history.

I'm voting for Clem! The reason nationalisation was such a bold move was because the public owernship of industries saved Britain's economy. Due to the over-development of some industries due to the war effort, i.e munitions and the under-development of others, if Britain had left itself open to the influence of the free-market we would have lost our most vital utilities, coal, steel ect. This would have caused large-scale unemployment similar to the kind seen in the 1930s. Labour wanted to Britain to have a strong economy which edged towards full-employment and better living standards, with a focus on equality of oppotunity. Nationalisation secured vital industries and provided Britain with the economic base to reconstruct itself.

A quote from the 1945 Labour manifesto is useful:
"Each industry must have applied to it the test of national service. If it serves the nation, well and good; if it is inefficient and falls down on its job, the nation must see that things are put right...The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it. Its ultimate purpose at home is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain - free, democratic, efficient, progressive, public-spirited, its material resources organised in the service of the British people".

It has been a long tradition in the labour movement to argue for nationalisation on basis of equality and security of people against large scale economic "do as you please" exploitation which can ruin people's lives

― Ben Wood (Sacred Humanist), Sunday, 11 February 2007 15:47 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.