I really dislike this idea amongst the Metropolitan middle-class that Glastonbury "represents" Britain.
I wouldn't dream of going, and nor would I go if you paid me.
As a paid up member of the metropolitan elite, I've never been to Glastonbury and have no intention of going. It no more represents Britain than Jimmy Saville.
I remember Wayne Larkins from the 1990/91 Ashes tour. He already looked about 45 on that time. RIP.
A typical decent county player who was shit when he played internationals
Graham Gooch rated him and thinks Larkins suffered by going on the first rebel tour.
Ironically it was the second rebel tour that allowed Larkins back in the team.
The Gooch was a terrific batsman but in Larkins case he never delivered. The Gooch may well have rated him, however A great player on paper is nothing if he never actually delivers when it matters.
Also his nickname, Ned. 🙄
Ravel Morrison waves....
I found out something about Ravel Morrison which reflects poorly on Manchester United, he was diagnosed with ADHD and was prescribed meds which would have helped him but because of anti-doping regulations he wasn't allowed to take it.
However he would have been able to take the meds if Manchester United had applied for an exemption but they didn't.
I saw a recent interview with him in which he claims he never been a drinker (or drugs), that he was addicted to Playstation....and numerous times he was out playing football with his mates until the small hours, meaning he didn't turn up for training.
I don't know how much he is trying to rewrite history or not.
Guy I sit next to at Arsenal knows Harvey Elliot's childhood best mate. They were in an academy together (not sure if QPR or Fulham), but Elliot, apparently, only ever wanted to play football. This other lad got into other "stuff" and has thrown it away. It's so infuriating because even if you don't make it to the very top, you can earn really good money in the lower leagues. Certainly better to anything else he's likely to do as a job.
The drop off down the leagues is pretty steep though, and the career is short. The idea of a benefit year was designed to set players up for the future once they were no longer playing.
A quick Google suggests League Two players are pushing £100k per year. Ten years of that and your set for life.
In a tent perhaps, by the time you have paid circa 40K tax a year and actually lived you would not have much left.
I really dislike this idea amongst the Metropolitan middle-class that Glastonbury "represents" Britain.
I wouldn't dream of going, and nor would I go if you paid me.
To be fair, most people centre themselves as the average, the normal, the representative. We see this with everything from maps to political descriptions (we tend to define far left and far right in reference to your own position, hence the Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Hitler meme).
Edited extra bit: also, as a massive introvert, I'd rather spend two weeks by myself than a couple of days at a music festival.
Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.
What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer. However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.
Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. Sunak 9. Johnson 10. Truss
I'd have Sunak above Starmer, and I think May was woeful:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. Sunak 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. May 9. Johnson 10. Truss
Given that a lot of the tax and money issues that Starmer has were created by Rishi as a trap I would rate Rishi below May so for me that would be
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Sunak 8. Starmer (new entry) 9. Johnson 10. Truss
The problem with all this numbering is that it suggests that there's the same between each of the entrants.
It should be more like:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 5. Major 10. Cameron 5,000. Brown 6,000,000. May 6,000,001. Sunak 8,000,000,000,000. Starmer (new entry) 9,000,000,000,005. Johnson 10e234. Truss
Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.
What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer. However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.
Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. Sunak 9. Johnson 10. Truss
I'd have Sunak above Starmer, and I think May was woeful:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. Sunak 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. May 9. Johnson 10. Truss
Given that a lot of the tax and money issues that Starmer has were created by Rishi as a trap I would rate Rishi below May so for me that would be
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Sunak 8. Starmer (new entry) 9. Johnson 10. Truss
The problem with all this numbering is that it suggests that there's the same between each of the entrants.
It should be more like:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 5. Major 10. Cameron 5,000. Brown 6,000,000. May 6,000,001. Sunak 8,000,000,000,000. Starmer (new entry) 9,000,000,000,005. Johnson 10e234. Truss
I really dislike this idea amongst the Metropolitan middle-class that Glastonbury "represents" Britain.
I wouldn't dream of going, and nor would I go if you paid me.
Never mind, righty Glasto The Proms will be along soon. Despite the invasion of Woke I doubt there’ll be many chants of death, death to the IDF. I wonder what the great flegfest’s policy on Palestinian & Israeli flags will be?
I really dislike this idea amongst the Metropolitan middle-class that Glastonbury "represents" Britain.
I wouldn't dream of going, and nor would I go if you paid me.
To be fair, most people centre themselves as the average, the normal, the representative. We see this with everything from maps to political descriptions (we tend to define far left and far right in reference to your own position, hence the Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Hitler meme).
Edited extra bit: also, as a massive introvert, I'd rather spend two weeks by myself than a couple of days at a music festival.
It's muddy, noisy, busy, unpleasant, full of other people who'd irritate, you can't go the loo easily, all of which stink anyway, you have to camp in a horrid field full of others. You won't sleep. Your stuff might get nicked. Live music at a festival isn't anywhere near as good as it sounds on a CD, and you can't see the artists anyway being miles away on a distant stage. You can't get out easily. Don't get any peace. It's dirty and unclean.
Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.
What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer. However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.
Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. Sunak 9. Johnson 10. Truss
I'd have Sunak above Starmer, and I think May was woeful:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. Sunak 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. May 9. Johnson 10. Truss
Given that a lot of the tax and money issues that Starmer has were created by Rishi as a trap I would rate Rishi below May so for me that would be
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Sunak 8. Starmer (new entry) 9. Johnson 10. Truss
The problem with all this numbering is that it suggests that there's the same between each of the entrants.
It should be more like:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 5. Major 10. Cameron 5,000. Brown 6,000,000. May 6,000,001. Sunak 8,000,000,000,000. Starmer (new entry) 9,000,000,000,005. Johnson 10e234. Truss
It is quite interesting that there is a grouping of PMs from 80s/90s at the top. And all the modern ones at the bottom. One would have to stick the 70s PMs in the mid pack.
I generally agree with the order you have, although I'd swap Brown (who I despise) with Starmer, who much against wisdom I don't think is too bad.
I really missed a treat last night on here. Air travel anecdotes AND the Centrist Dad Eid al-Fitr of Glastonbury.
On topic... Meeksy is right. DJT is going to run in 2028 (and will probably win) but the bookies, like a lot of other people, are refusing to face that reality just as they refused to believe he'd run and win in 2024.
He will be (even more) gaga
There has to be a decent chance he starts blurting out even more stuff on TwiX, like THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT WAS FAKE
Hadn't realised Gary Numan had never played Galstonbury until today. Sounded great. His two guitarists were cool - looked like "what two White Walkers did on our holidays".
I hadn't realized you were a lesbian.
I just love women. I must be then.
Inside every straight man there's a lesbian wanting to get out and outside every lesbian there's a straight man wanting to get in.
"I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body." - E. Izzard.
He's not a lesbian trapped in a man's body, he's an attention-seeking pillock.
Does anyone ever use "pillock" outside the hallowed halls of PB anymore?
Does anyone use it here? Seems a bit modern when we can use tatterdemalion, flibbertigibbert etc
Shakespeare uses 'pillicock' which gives us pillock. King Lear. Should be go back to it?
I really missed a treat last night on here. Air travel anecdotes AND the Centrist Dad Eid al-Fitr of Glastonbury.
On topic... Meeksy is right. DJT is going to run in 2028 (and will probably win) but the bookies, like a lot of other people, are refusing to face that reality just as they refused to believe he'd run and win in 2024.
He will be (even more) gaga
There has to be a decent chance he starts blurting out even more stuff on TwiX, like THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT WAS FAKE
You think he wants an Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize?
Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.
What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer. However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.
Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. Sunak 9. Johnson 10. Truss
I'd have Sunak above Starmer, and I think May was woeful:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. Sunak 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. May 9. Johnson 10. Truss
Given that a lot of the tax and money issues that Starmer has were created by Rishi as a trap I would rate Rishi below May so for me that would be
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Sunak 8. Starmer (new entry) 9. Johnson 10. Truss
The problem with all this numbering is that it suggests that there's the same between each of the entrants.
It should be more like:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 5. Major 10. Cameron 5,000. Brown 6,000,000. May 6,000,001. Sunak 8,000,000,000,000. Starmer (new entry) 9,000,000,000,005. Johnson 10e234. Truss
I think people are much too harsh on Johnson, who had moments of sheer inspiration, as when he delivered the largest democratic vote for anything in British history, and so probably saved democracy here, who kept us out of the EU vaccines morass (remember those Kraut headlines, "We envy you"?) and who helped the Ukrainians when it was by no means obvious that they would survive. Sunak also had to deal with the aftermath of Covid and Truss and so was dealt an almost impossible hand.
I also think people are much too generous with Blair and Brown, who essentially squandered the Conservatives' golden economic legacy, and have given us 20 years of stagnation. And Cameron who couldn't even get a majority against Brown and spent 6 years in office apologising for being a Conservative.
Oh, and I'm going to insert a phantom entry at #2 because of who we need for our next PM, even though I admit it seems fairly unlikely.
So my ranking would be:
1. Thatcher 2. Milei (wish fulfilment) 250. Major 5,000. Blair 10,000 Johnson 10,001 Sunak 6,000,000. Cameron 8,000,000,000,000. Starmer (new entry) 9,000,000,000,005. May 9,000,000,000,006. Brown 10e234. Truss
I really missed a treat last night on here. Air travel anecdotes AND the Centrist Dad Eid al-Fitr of Glastonbury.
On topic... Meeksy is right. DJT is going to run in 2028 (and will probably win) but the bookies, like a lot of other people, are refusing to face that reality just as they refused to believe he'd run and win in 2024.
He will be (even more) gaga
There has to be a decent chance he starts blurting out even more stuff on TwiX, like THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT WAS FAKE
You think he wants an Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize?
I've been trying to work out this weekend which I would less like to go to; Glastonbury or Jeff Bezoz's wedding. Instead I went to a concert in Cathedral and heard beautiful music.
Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.
What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer. However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.
Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. Sunak 9. Johnson 10. Truss
I'd have Sunak above Starmer, and I think May was woeful:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. Sunak 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. May 9. Johnson 10. Truss
Given that a lot of the tax and money issues that Starmer has were created by Rishi as a trap I would rate Rishi below May so for me that would be
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Sunak 8. Starmer (new entry) 9. Johnson 10. Truss
The problem with all this numbering is that it suggests that there's the same between each of the entrants.
It should be more like:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 5. Major 10. Cameron 5,000. Brown 6,000,000. May 6,000,001. Sunak 8,000,000,000,000. Starmer (new entry) 9,000,000,000,005. Johnson 10e234. Truss
It is quite interesting that there is a grouping of PMs from 80s/90s at the top. And all the modern ones at the bottom. One would have to stick the 70s PMs in the mid pack.
I generally agree with the order you have, although I'd swap Brown (who I despise) with Starmer, who much against wisdom I don't think is too bad.
A mix of the demographics of the country, the demographics of pb and that they probably deserve to be roughly in those groupings.
We should do the last 150 years, not just the last 50.
Then, you can fold in Gladstone, Disraeli and Lord Salisbury into that list, as well as Lloyd-George and Churchill, which is where it gets interesting.
Of course, if DJT can stand again, then so can his nemesis, Barack Obama.
No, it will turn out that a deep reading of the Federalist Papers* will inform a reading of the constitution that accidentally makes it impossible for any opponents of DJT to stand 3 times. Or maybe, even once.
*The authors of the Federalist Papers, if still alive, would have horsewhipped DJT. Then hung him.
And today’s Rawnsley, via what looks like another sunny morning in Oslo:
Welfare reform is rarely easy and especially neuralgic for Labour governments. Helping the needy and tackling poverty are the lodestars for many of the party’s MPs. This means that reform requires meticulous preparation, astute communication and smooth execution. We have instead been witnesses to a textbook example of panicky decision-making, maladroit messaging and terrible personnel management. Sir Keir is a busy man with limited appetite for spending diary space talking to backbenchers. He’s far from unique among prime ministers in feeling this way.
The government has tried to make the case that the cost of welfare is rising at an unsustainable pace and there is an imperative to get people into work. Some officials still insist that it would have got to a better place had it been more adept at selling that story. The trouble is that any fool could see that the prime driver was not a genuine desire to reform welfare but a frantic scrabble to make Rachel Reeves’s sums add up.
This revolt became the point of a sword of general discontent about how the government is run and some of the choices it has made. The chancellor and the chief of staff are lightning rods for discontent with the prime minister. All roads of responsibility ultimately lead back to Sir Keir himself.
There will be a price to pay for this demarche, and not just in the billions the government will now have to find elsewhere. If this is to be the transformative government Sir Keir claims he wants to lead, it has many contentious issues to grapple with in its second year, from reform of the immigration regime to the overhaul of the NHS. The Grand Old Duke of Downing Street has marched up the hill and then halfway back down again. In doing so, he has given his backbenchers a taste of blood. The next time there is a “tough decision” to make and he presents it as non-negotiable, he will find it that much more difficult to get the public, the financial markets or his own MPs to take him seriously.
The culture of parliament and its backbenchers is skewed. They take lots of noisy interest in how to spend our money, but that level of thought is no better than pub talk. Party leadership should engage with backbenchers much more on the issue of how to raise the money by taxation and other means. Just as with a small business only in your dreams can you detach one side of the ledger from the other.
I've been trying to work out this weekend which I would less like to go to; Glastonbury or Jeff Bezoz's wedding. Instead I went to a concert in Cathedral and heard beautiful music.
I've been trying to work out this weekend which I would less like to go to; Glastonbury or Jeff Bezoz's wedding. Instead I went to a concert in Cathedral and heard beautiful music.
Three stories about it on the BBC news homepage.
How many journalists have they sent this year?
Glastonbury is the equivalent of the office summer party in BBC Towers.
1. Thatch - Returned Britain briefly to her pomp, but also flawed in many ways. 8/10
2. Major - Generally ran a competent ship, but fell disastrously prey to Europe. 6/10
3. Cameron - Failed to reverse the toxic Blair legacy. Wet euroloon who dropped the UK like a hot potato when it failed to back his EU 'deal'. Gets his place due to winning Indyref and generally looking the part. 5/10
4. Johnson - Tragic waste of potential. 4/10
5. Blair - Squandered a golden economic legacy. Contitutional vandalism that has yet to be unravelled. Look (and was) vaguely competent in so doing. 2/10
6. Brown - Like Blair but without the competency. Utterly useless on the economy, contrary to his billing. 1/10
7. May - Unsuited to be PM. 1/10
8. Truss - No good having the right ideas if you implode politically. Damaging mess as PM but I am awarding her a single point for bravery. 1/10
9. Sunak - Disastrously unequal to the times. 0/10
10. Starmer - Wilfully malign, with questionable loyalties. His profound lack of competence is his best feature. 0/10
I really dislike this idea amongst the Metropolitan middle-class that Glastonbury "represents" Britain.
I wouldn't dream of going, and nor would I go if you paid me.
To be fair, most people centre themselves as the average, the normal, the representative. We see this with everything from maps to political descriptions (we tend to define far left and far right in reference to your own position, hence the Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Hitler meme).
Edited extra bit: also, as a massive introvert, I'd rather spend two weeks by myself than a couple of days at a music festival.
It's muddy, noisy, busy, unpleasant, full of other people who'd irritate, you can't go the loo easily, all of which stink anyway, you have to camp in a horrid field full of others. You won't sleep. Your stuff might get nicked. Live music at a festival isn't anywhere near as good as it sounds on a CD, and you can't see the artists anyway being miles away on a distant stage. You can't get out easily. Don't get any peace. It's dirty and unclean.
I'd rather stay in Sangatte.
Surprisingly, you missed out on all the enforced woke jollity.
We should do the last 150 years, not just the last 50.
Then, you can fold in Gladstone, Disraeli and Lord Salisbury into that list, as well as Lloyd-George and Churchill, which is where it gets interesting.
You'd have to separate Churchill, I think, as he was basically two PMs - wartime where he obviously triumphed, despite having dealt a very difficult hand, and peacetime, where he failed in just about everything, and stored up a lot of trouble for the next thirty years, by appeasing the unions and failing to clamp down on immigration early.
He and Macmillian DID build lots of houses, something apparently beyond our current political class, though they were generally rubbish.
We should do the last 150 years, not just the last 50.
Then, you can fold in Gladstone, Disraeli and Lord Salisbury into that list, as well as Lloyd-George and Churchill, which is where it gets interesting.
Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.
What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer. However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.
Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. Sunak 9. Johnson 10. Truss
I'd have Sunak above Starmer, and I think May was woeful:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. Sunak 7. Starmer (new entry) 8. May 9. Johnson 10. Truss
Given that a lot of the tax and money issues that Starmer has were created by Rishi as a trap I would rate Rishi below May so for me that would be
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 3. Major 4. Cameron 5. Brown 6. May 7. Sunak 8. Starmer (new entry) 9. Johnson 10. Truss
The problem with all this numbering is that it suggests that there's the same between each of the entrants.
It should be more like:
1. Thatcher 2. Blair 5. Major 10. Cameron 5,000. Brown 6,000,000. May 6,000,001. Sunak 8,000,000,000,000. Starmer (new entry) 9,000,000,000,005. Johnson 10e234. Truss
It is quite interesting that there is a grouping of PMs from 80s/90s at the top. And all the modern ones at the bottom. One would have to stick the 70s PMs in the mid pack.
I generally agree with the order you have, although I'd swap Brown (who I despise) with Starmer, who much against wisdom I don't think is too bad.
A mix of the demographics of the country, the demographics of pb and that they probably deserve to be roughly in those groupings.
Yes
Alternatively I'd contend that in the 70s we were a broken nation, fixed in the 80s, and managed to run along reasonably nicely until the financial crash illustrated the fragile nature of matters. Since then we've mostly been digging ourselves back into the hole of the 70s.
Comments
Edited extra bit: also, as a massive introvert, I'd rather spend two weeks by myself than a couple of days at a music festival.
It should be more like:
1. Thatcher
2. Blair
5. Major
10. Cameron
5,000. Brown
6,000,000. May
6,000,001. Sunak
8,000,000,000,000. Starmer (new entry)
9,000,000,000,005. Johnson
10e234. Truss
I wonder what the great flegfest’s policy on Palestinian & Israeli flags will be?
“The Trump regime was having the Gestapo arrest migrants.”
I'd rather stay in Sangatte.
I generally agree with the order you have, although I'd swap Brown (who I despise) with Starmer, who much against wisdom I don't think is too bad.
There has to be a decent chance he starts blurting out even more stuff on TwiX, like THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT WAS FAKE
I also think people are much too generous with Blair and Brown, who essentially squandered the Conservatives' golden economic legacy, and have given us 20 years of stagnation. And Cameron who couldn't even get a majority against Brown and spent 6 years in office apologising for being a Conservative.
Oh, and I'm going to insert a phantom entry at #2 because of who we need for our next PM, even though I admit it seems fairly unlikely.
So my ranking would be:
1. Thatcher
2. Milei (wish fulfilment)
250. Major
5,000. Blair
10,000 Johnson
10,001 Sunak
6,000,000. Cameron
8,000,000,000,000. Starmer (new entry)
9,000,000,000,005. May
9,000,000,000,006. Brown
10e234. Truss
Oh, and an OSCAR
https://x.com/archrose90/status/1939027539663446132?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Then, you can fold in Gladstone, Disraeli and Lord Salisbury into that list, as well as Lloyd-George and Churchill, which is where it gets interesting.
*The authors of the Federalist Papers, if still alive, would have horsewhipped DJT. Then hung him.
How many journalists have they sent this year?
Mine would be.
1. Thatch - Returned Britain briefly to her pomp, but also flawed in many ways. 8/10
2. Major - Generally ran a competent ship, but fell disastrously prey to Europe. 6/10
3. Cameron - Failed to reverse the toxic Blair legacy. Wet euroloon who dropped the UK like a hot potato when it failed to back his EU 'deal'. Gets his place due to winning Indyref and generally looking the part. 5/10
4. Johnson - Tragic waste of potential. 4/10
5. Blair - Squandered a golden economic legacy. Contitutional vandalism that has yet to be unravelled. Look (and was) vaguely competent in so doing. 2/10
6. Brown - Like Blair but without the competency. Utterly useless on the economy, contrary to his billing. 1/10
7. May - Unsuited to be PM. 1/10
8. Truss - No good having the right ideas if you implode politically. Damaging mess as PM but I am awarding her a single point for bravery. 1/10
9. Sunak - Disastrously unequal to the times. 0/10
10. Starmer - Wilfully malign, with questionable loyalties. His profound lack of competence is his best feature. 0/10
NEW THREAD
He and Macmillian DID build lots of houses, something apparently beyond our current political class, though they were generally rubbish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoDKh1EAZjI
Alternatively I'd contend that in the 70s we were a broken nation, fixed in the 80s, and managed to run along reasonably nicely until the financial crash illustrated the fragile nature of matters. Since then we've mostly been digging ourselves back into the hole of the 70s.