Worst British Prime Minister?

[Tagmatium]

Bush-Puppet Blair, obviously. I have seen ventriliquist dummies with more independent thought.

As much as I don't really like Blair, he did do a fair bit of good in his early years, post 1997. The raising of the minimum wage and toppling Milosvic's regime in Serbia were some examples of this.

[Bears Armed]

To those who think Blair was the worst PM of all time. Just think about it -- especially if you disregard his last 4 years in office. But even if you count those, our domestic situation was quite good. He made one mistake, he followed one of the foolish men to have power in history. That was rather unforgivable, but let's not think he was near the worst. If anything, he was near the best.

Only one? Let's add his appointing Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least...

[Dimoniquid]

Gordon Brown; 'ave it.

[Tomvik]

Gordon Brown is definatley the worst!

1.Gordon Brown

2.Margret Thatcher

3.Neville Chamberlain

Brought to you by the Goverment of KO Tomvik.

(KO: Kingdom Of)

We are at war with Wysteria.

[The Archregimancy]

I can't help wonder how many of those picking Gordon Brown...

A) Personally remember any Prime Minister before Major.

B) Have ever voted.

Just a thought.

For the record, I was born during Harold Wilson's first term. The first Prime Minister I personally remember is Heath, largely because my mother ran for Parliament in the second 1974 election.

[North Suran]

Off-list: This one.

On-list: I don't know much about many of the listed Prime Ministers. I'm tempted to say John Major - since his tenure seemd to just be disaster after disaster - but I find his personality to be sound and his political ability to be adequate.

[The Archregimancy]

Bush-Puppet Blair, obviously. I have seen ventriliquist dummies with more independent thought.

As much as I don't really like Blair, he did do a fair bit of good in his early years, post 1997. The raising of the minimum wage and toppling Milosvic's regime in Serbia were some examples of this.

And then there's the single greatest success of his liberal intervention policy: Sierra Leone.

Regrettably, it was a success with painful consequences.

The problem to my mind is that Sierra Leone was the first step on the path to Iraq. Sierra Leone was a brilliant success by the standards of these things; Kosovo was a more debatable success that achieved its short-term goal, but left some long-term loose ends that we're still dealing with; Iraq had some purely superficial short-term successes, but the long-term ends hardly seem to have justified the means. Each intervention was larger than the previous one; each intervention was less successful than the previous one.

[Angleter]

It's hard to beat Lord North, but Gordon Brown has probably done it.

[Yootopia]

It's hard to beat Lord North, but Gordon Brown has probably done it.

-___________________________-

Remember, kids, the dodgy investments chosen by a half-dozen banks that have Really Gone And Ruined Everything are the fault of Gordon Brown... ho yes...

[South Lorenya]

As someone west of the puddle, I haven';t really studied up on the various PMs. I do know, however, that the munich agreement was a HUGE blunder. Maybe not at the "invade russia during the winter" level, but...

[Yootopia]

As someone west of the puddle, I haven';t really studied up on the various PMs. I do know, however, that the munich agreement was a HUGE blunder. Maybe not at the "invade russia during the winter" level, but...

PFFFT. Due to mega cutbacks in the early 1930s, the British military was in no state to defend the territory of the UK (or, as it later turned out, East Asia). Another year and a bit to make something of an airforce was a Good Call.

[The Naked Ape]

Is Gordon Brown really bad enough to qualify as the worst PM ever?

[Cabra West]

Is Gordon Brown really bad enough to qualify as the worst PM ever?

I don't really think so.
He's not the most competent, I'd say, and the camera certainly doesn't love him, but I think there have been much, much worse before him.

[Falasia]

Neville Chamberlain, As he wanted to become allies with Adolf Hitler

[The Archregimancy]

Neville Chamberlain, As he wanted to become allies with Adolf Hitler

I think that's a little harsh on poor Nev. Whatever his reasons for the Munich Agreement - which even those of us who are willing to concede was undertaken from the best of intentions will similarly concede was retrospectively a huge mistake - I don't think too many historians will argue that he was seeking an alliance with Hitler. Containment, perhaps, but alliance, no. Chamberlain's mistake at Munich was thinking Hitler was a rational Western European he could reach an agreement with, not thinking he should ally with him. Post-Munich, Chamberlain and Daladier were actually seeking an alliance with the Soviet Union, not Hitler - though the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would put an end to that effort until Barbarossa forced the issue.

And the lesson of Munich can be taken too far in the other direction... Eden's determination not to be seen to 'appease' Nasser was one of the reasons behind the disastrous Suez intervention in 1956 (and which is presumably the main reason Eden's in third on the poll behind Chamberlain and 'other'). The 'lesson of Munich' was also one of the main pieces of propaganda used to argue in favour of the invasion of Iraq, and how many people here agree with that in retrospect?

[Kobrania]

Tony Blair.

Smug bastard.

[The Archregimancy]

As someone west of the puddle, I haven';t really studied up on the various PMs. I do know, however, that the munich agreement was a HUGE blunder. Maybe not at the "invade russia during the winter" level, but...

PFFFT. Due to mega cutbacks in the early 1930s, the British military was in no state to defend the territory of the UK (or, as it later turned out, East Asia). Another year and a bit to make something of an airforce was a Good Call.

The counter-argument is that the French weren't nearly so badly off in terms of their military parity with Germany, and that if Britain had backed a French show of force over Czechoslovakia, or even earlier over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, then the Nazis - or at least Hitler - could have been headed off at the pass much earlier. In this line of argument, it was Britain's reluctance to support France in confronting Hitler when it could have been effective that was catastrophic. I don't know enough about French history to comment intelligently about that, but I do know that French premier Edouard Daladier was far more reluctant than Chamberlain to sell out the Czechs and Slovaks, but eventually allowed himself to be worn down by Chamberlain's determination to reach an agreement at Munich.

So while I'd agree that the lack of British military readiness can potentially be used as a mitigating factor in Chamberlain's defence (as I've myself done in this thread), using it as a primary mitigating factor perhaps makes the mistake of transposing the circumstances of mid-1940 (when Britain faced Hitler alone) on to the circumstances of 1938 (when we had a potentially formidable ally that we let down rather badly). Similarly, the ease with which Germany defeated France in 1940 shouldn't be used to automatically assume that the same would have occurred in 1936 or 1938, especially if Czechoslovakia, with its relatively advanced arms industry, had been allowed to put up a fight in '38, forcing a two front war before the Nazis were as ready as they were two years later.

It was Eden, incidentally, who urged the French to show 'restraint' over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in '36... Pity he didn't show the same restraint himself 20 years later.

[Yootopia]

As someone west of the puddle, I haven';t really studied up on the various PMs. I do know, however, that the munich agreement was a HUGE blunder. Maybe not at the "invade russia during the winter" level, but...

PFFFT. Due to mega cutbacks in the early 1930s, the British military was in no state to defend the territory of the UK (or, as it later turned out, East Asia). Another year and a bit to make something of an airforce was a Good Call.

The counter-argument is that the French weren't nearly so badly off in terms of their military parity with Germany, and that if Britain had backed a French show of force over Czechoslovakia, or even earlier over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, then the Nazis - or at least Hitler - could have been headed off at the pass much earlier. In this line of argument, it was Britain's reluctance to support France in confronting Hitler when it could have been effective that was catastrophic. I don't know enough about French history to comment intelligently about that, but I do know that French premier Edouard Daladier was far more reluctant than Chamberlain to sell out the Czechs and Slovaks, but eventually allowed himself to be worn down by Chamberlain's determination to reach an agreement at Munich.

Seeing as the mid-late 1930s in France were a period of serious internal conflict between the left and right, fascists and communists and the centre-right trying to keep things together, I don't know that the French (or indeed Czechs) would have been at all united if they were told to invade Nazi Germany, seeing as both had spent pretty serious amounts of money on static fortifications.

So while I'd agree that the lack of British military readiness can potentially be used as a mitigating factor in Chamberlain's defence (as I've myself done in this thread), using it as a primary mitigating factor perhaps makes the mistake of transposing the circumstances of mid-1940 (when Britain faced Hitler alone) on to the circumstances of 1938 (when we had a potentially formidable ally that we let down rather badly). Similarly, the ease with which Germany defeated France in 1940 shouldn't be used to automatically assume that the same would have occurred in 1936 or 1938, especially if Czechoslovakia, with its relatively advanced arms industry, had been allowed to put up a fight in '38, forcing a two front war before the Nazis were as ready as they were two years later.

I really don't know if the Beneš Wall would have stood up all that much better than the Maginot Line, but then again there are no control experiments and all that.

It was Eden, incidentally, who urged the French to show 'restraint' over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in '36... Pity he didn't show the same restraint himself 20 years later.

Quite.

[Twigica]

Honestly, I can't comment on anybody but Major, Blair and Brown and, even taking into account the fact I was young when Labour came into power, the Blair/Brown two-headed monster has fucked this country over like never before. Kowtowing to America at every turn and the idiocy that the 1998 Human Rights Act is simply appalling work on their part.

Totally agree. They have run this country into the ground and quite frankly I wouldn't care if someone assasinated Brown.
NOTE: I'm not saying I'm going to.

[North Suran]

Honestly, I can't comment on anybody but Major, Blair and Brown and, even taking into account the fact I was young when Labour came into power, the Blair/Brown two-headed monster has fucked this country over like never before. Kowtowing to America at every turn and the idiocy that the 1998 Human Rights Act is simply appalling work on their part.

Totally agree. They have run this country into the ground and quite frankly I wouldn't care if someone assasinated Brown.
NOTE: I'm not saying I'm going to.

There are very few present world leaders who deserve to be assassinated - Gordon Brown is certainly not one of them.

And Christ, this is such a testament to the tabloid-mindset of the British public; all the achievements of the Labour Government brushed under the rug of a global Recession that was outwith their control and a single war.

[SD_Film Artists]

Margaret Thatcher.

From where I'm standing, I would have to agree. I think her actions are the ones with the most negative impact to this day.
What her era might be regarded like in, say 100 years, is difficult to say, but I somehow doubt history will be kind, to be honest.

Like Winston Churchill, her war years were her 'finest hour' but disliked in peacetime. The difference being that Churchill is remembered for his war years where as Thatcher is remembered for the peacetime (of which there were lots). Thus Churchill is the most loved Prime Minister whilst Thatcher will have a DDR machine as her grave stone.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Margaret Thatcher.

From where I'm standing, I would have to agree. I think her actions are the ones with the most negative impact to this day.
What her era might be regarded like in, say 100 years, is difficult to say, but I somehow doubt history will be kind, to be honest.

Like Winston Churchill, her war years were her 'finest hour' but disliked in peacetime. The difference being that Churchill is remembered for his war years where as Thatcher is remembered for the peacetime (of which there was lots). Thus Churchill is the most loved Prime Minister whilst Thatcher will have a DDR machine as her grave stone.

Churchill's war was also a more clearly pressing and relevent war of the times.While the Falklands War was of significance, Churchill led the country against a threat that would have invaded and destroyed England. It does have a nice wieghty historical nature that adds to his status

[Muravyets]

Dammit. I wish I wasn't such a closet-puritan American revolutionary who despises all that old world aristocracy shit. The guys with the titles in the OP poll sound so fucking cool. Makes me think Americans need titles. *leaves again*

[The Archregimancy]

Dammit. I wish I wasn't such a closet-puritan American revolutionary who despises all that old world aristocracy shit. The guys with the titles in the OP poll sound so fucking cool. Makes me think Americans need titles. *leaves again*

Then you'll consider it a crushing disappointment that we don't allow our Prime Ministers to have titles anymore. The last time we had a party leader in the Lords (Douglas-Home), he had to resign his hereditary peerage.

Which is a bit of a relief, because it's practically the only thing saving us from having the 'Baron Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham' as Prime Minister. He could theoretically resign his life peerage too, but even Mandelson apparently considers it too naked a grab for power to resign his peerage just to make himself available to lead the Labour Party. And maybe he's just happier running things from not-so-behind the scenes.

[The Archregimancy]

Seeing as the mid-late 1930s in France were a period of serious internal conflict between the left and right, fascists and communists and the centre-right trying to keep things together, I don't know that the French (or indeed Czechs) would have been at all united if they were told to invade Nazi Germany, seeing as both had spent pretty serious amounts of money on static fortifications.

Oh, I don't want to downplay France's internal tensions in the second half of the 1930s, but they certainly weren't as badly off as Weimar Germany had been. Besides, with the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, I'm not sure we're talking about a full-scale invasion - just a show of force to make it clear remilitarisation was unwelcome and impossible. The Rhineland was a giant bluff on the part of an unprepared Nazi regime. I recently read Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, and it seems to me that had Britain given France the requested support over the Rhineland, and the initial confrontation had taken place in 1936, then the Nazis - or at least Hitler - might have been stopped before a general war broke out. Euphoria over Hitler's Rhineland coup went some way towards discouraging conservative elements in the German army from proceeding with their tentative anti-Hitler coup plans. Traditionalist elements in the army wouldn't seriously try to remove Hitler again until 1944, and we all know how well that went.

At the same time, it suited many in France that Britain didn't give them the desired support over the Rhineland, as - partially for the reasons you state - the French weren't sure they were ready for the general mobilisation that would have been required in 1936, and it suited those opposed to confrontation to be able to blame Britain for their lack of support.

But it's all a big 'what if'; I concede that the only thing we can be sure of is what actually happened, not what might have happened.

I really don't know if the Beneš Wall would have stood up all that much better than the Maginot Line, but then again there are no control experiments and all that.

I don't know either; 1938 is tricker than 1936, as I don't doubt that confrontation in '38 - unlike '36 - would have resulted if Britain and France had backed the Czechoslavak state at Munich. Because of their exposed position, Bohemia and Moravia would have been very hard to defend against a concerted two-prong attack, so the Czechs might not even have lasted as long as the Poles (whose against-the-odds stand in '39 is often underrated) did a year later, especially if the Slovaks decided to break ranks. Morally it would have been the right thing to do; the awkward practicalities are more ambiguous. Here the counter argument to the state of readiness of the allies is the basic unsustainability of the Nazi economy; Kershaw suggests that the German economic model was so close to collapse in late '38 due to lack of access to basic industrial resources and materials that Nazi remilitarisation would have been unsustainable without access to Czech industry.

And just to be pedantic, the Maginot Line itself stood up perfectly well. The problem with the Maginot line wasn't its defensive capabilities; the problem was you could go around it. Ooops.