Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Rating the Post-War PMs

Here is an FT list, via Dale, of how "academics" would rate the post-war PMs:


Well, I'm in academia at the moment, and here's how I'd rate them (and why):

12: Brown: An odious, incapable man who should never have been allowed to become Prime Minister. He wrecked the country's economy, damaged our international standing and left our country in broken pieces for his successor government to try to put back together. I've said it before but I'll say it again - the only way for Cameron to be worse than Brown is if he actually declares war on the British people.

11: Eden: Massively over-hyped before he got into power, he wasn't up to the job and his raging paranoia over would-be aggressive dictators nearly got us into a shooting war with the US and made it very clear that Britain was no longer as great on the world stage as it had been. It also inspired a couple of unusually tedious Dennis Potter dramas.

1o: Callaghan: He may have been a genial chap from all accounts, but as PM he was pretty much useless. He bowed down to the unions and let them run this country pretty much into the ground, before committing a major strategic blunder and delaying an election that he could have won but that he would later lose.

9: Douglas-Home: Difficult to know what to say about Douglas-Home other than he lost an election. He's a non-entity - simultaneously neither a good Prime Minister nor a bad one.

8: Blair: A formidable election winner, Blair's legacy will, however, be constantly undermined by the Iraq War, the fact that his supposed economic success was built on shifting sands and his failure to prevent the clearly unsuitable Brown becoming his replacement.

7: Heath: He had the potential to be a genuinely reforming Prime Minister, but he took us into Europe, failed to win his battle with the unions and ultimately revealed himself to be a repugnant man both in No.10 and afterwards on the Tory back-benches.

6: Wilson: Well, he won more than he lost and he managed, despite the pressure from the US, to keep us out of Vietnam. But he did a lot to break the economy and hand the country over to the Unions, and he also managed to stay on at No.10 for far longer than he should have done.

5: Major: Yep, there was Black Wednesday. But prior to that there was one of the most spectacular electoral upsets in history, and after Black Wednesday Major's government did much to rebuild the economy (inbetween conducting a debilitating intra-party civil war). Crucially, the country he handed over was in better shape than when he got it. Just a shame, really, that he handed it over to Nu Labour...

4: Churchill: Ok, as a post-war PM he was largely inactive. He maintained the status quo and seemed to be slowly counting down the days until he was no longer able to do the job and had to retire. Nonetheless, he is the only one in this list who genuinely managed to become a British icon.

3: Macmillan: A caretaker PM in the best sense of the word - he did little to transform the country, but effectively managed it and rebuilt it and his party after the disaster that was Anthony Eden. Like Major, he left a country in a better state than when he found it.

2: Attlee: An odd choice for No.2 given I'm a Libertarian, Attlee is this high because he believed in a political ideology and actually set out to implement it, rather than just talking about it. Furthermore, his reforms may have created a bloated state, but they also helped to end communism as a potential alternative in this country. I'd doubt I've have voted for him, but Attlee scores highly in part because the vast majority of those who have followed him have been far less capable than him.

1: Thatcher: A socially conservative PM who grew increasingly loopy while in power and ultimately ended up shooting herself in the head politically with the poll tax, Thatcher at least understood the need to reduce the size and the scope of the state, albeit only in some areas. And to date, she is the only Prime Minister who has (a) understood this and (b) tried to do something about it.

And Cameron? He can't really be rated until he has ceased to be PM. At the moment, he would rate quite highly if only because he has yet to spectacularly drop the ball. I don't doubt for a moment that at some point he will, so only time will tell how badly he fares in future polls.

If/when you disagree, please feel free to put your thoughts in the comments section. If said comments aren't jarringly dull, I may even respond...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

9 Comments:

At 1:17 pm , Blogger Tim Almond said...

I would put Blair lower than Brown. Most of the rise in economic debt was by Brown as Chancellor, but it was on Blair's watch as PM. He was (with the exception of gay rights), a socially illiberal prime minister.

I see the man as an utter crook, someone who had not a shred of patriotism in his body. Everything he did was self-serving. He lied over Iraq to ensure his place in history, he quit his seat as soon as he stopped being PM.

The only good thing he did was to prove that throwing money at the NHS and education didn't make much difference.

 
At 1:58 pm , Anonymous The Jaunt said...

Just a few good & bad things that you might have wanted to consider that you omitted in your list

Heath: Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971

Atlee: Transferred power to India and other former British colonies, established the NHS without losing business for the private doctors at the time.

Wilson: Race Relations Acts 1965-1976

Macmillian: Council housing programmes to build lots of council houses in the country for poorer generations now, and in the future

Major: Started the Northern Ireland peace process, did most of the hard work for that, which lead to the IRA ceasefire

Blair: Implemented the vast majority of LGBT rights legislation. Also initiated PFIs which has ended up costing us more money than if we had bought hospital buildings outright through tax money.

Thatcher: Section 28, mass unemployment, and shut down most of the coal mines, making us reliant on Polish coal, which has less Sulphur emissions. Also stood up to the Argentinian military junta in the Falklands.

 
At 6:35 pm , Blogger david cameron's forehead said...

Another way in which Heath was a cunt, then.

Macmillan (even more than his predecessors, who acted differently in quite significant ways) was at best questionable on whether his housing programme was good. The only real defence that could be made was it was that or have people living in the old slums.

I grew up on an estate built in the 50s. It was shite. My grandparents said when they were young living in back to back houses, their lives were actually even more shite than that. But still, the legacy of shoving every poor person onto an estate where no one around them holds a well-paid or responsible job (in short, a ghetto) was not a well-advised thing for the government to do.

I haven't looked back over it in 2 years but I really appreciated the book "Estates" by Lynsey Hanley. Although I don't share the author's views, such as her admiration for Attlee, her criticism of 50s policy & analysis of a hard up & put upon life (which of course was hers as a youth, & mine) is quite something.

 
At 9:05 pm , Blogger TonyF said...

Blair 'call me Tony' single handedly devalued the post of Prime minister. He lost it's respect.

 
At 11:15 pm , Anonymous The Jaunt said...

"Another way in which Heath was a cunt, then."

Yes, and I would have rated Heath as being #11, just above Atlee for the biggest failure of a policy that's ever been implemented in the last 50 years.

 
At 11:16 pm , Anonymous The Jaunt said...

Whooops, I meant, just above Eden.

 
At 9:58 am , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just goes to show what a shower they all were

 
At 9:22 pm , Anonymous Howard said...

"The only way Cameron could be worse than Brown is if he actually declared war on the British People".

Have you seen the cuts? I think he HAS declared war on the British people . . .

 
At 5:39 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Howard,

Don't be feeble. There is nothing in cutting back the size of state spending (or cutting the rate of spending growth, more accurately) that represents declaring war on the British people. Quite the opposite; reducing the size of the state can help to make the people more free.

TNL

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home