Thatcher will ascend to the pantheon now, as the divisions are forgotten and people seek a reassuring benchmark of political greatness and unquestionable achievement. It is human nature.
In about 30-40 years we will discuss her the way we discuss Churchill today, and the way Americans discuss Lincoln.
Perhaps Attlee would be the comparison.
Who talks about Attlee ? Nobody on the right and just a few devotees on the Left. Everybody across the political spectrum talks about Thatcher.
More people can remember the 80s! As time drifts, the Tories will continue to venerate her - just as the Labour Party venerates Attlee - and for everyone else she'll become another historical figure. Probably only Churchill transcends that and that's because of his wartime leadership.
Yes of course it's fresher but Thatcher was a world figure in the way Attlee was not. If we want to look at C20 PMs who had the biggest impact on the UK I'd go:
1. Herbert Asquith - took the catastropic decison to enter WW1 and thereby screwed the nation for most of the rest of the centrury. Biggest impact for the wrong reasons. 2. Winston Churchill - crap at most things bar writing, but took the hard moral stance in the darkest of days when most wanted to cave in. 3. Margaret Thatcher - brought a sense of stability and self confidence back to the UK after half a century of decline but not without pain. 4. Attlee - welfare state, nationalisation and man from the ministry gave socialism a trial, but largely a failed experiment. Biggest achievement may have been to dismantle the Empire in India.
You miss out Lloyd George why? (Alongside overlooking the pre-war Liberal reforms under Asquith's premiership).
Thatcher will ascend to the pantheon now, as the divisions are forgotten and people seek a reassuring benchmark of political greatness and unquestionable achievement. It is human nature.
In about 30-40 years we will discuss her the way we discuss Churchill today, and the way Americans discuss Lincoln.
Perhaps Attlee would be the comparison.
Who talks about Attlee ? Nobody on the right and just a few devotees on the Left. Everybody across the political spectrum talks about Thatcher.
More people can remember the 80s! As time drifts, the Tories will continue to venerate her - just as the Labour Party venerates Attlee - and for everyone else she'll become another historical figure. Probably only Churchill transcends that and that's because of his wartime leadership.
Yes of course it's fresher but Thatcher was a world figure in the way Attlee was not. If we want to look at C20 PMs who had the biggest impact on the UK I'd go:
1. Herbert Asquith - took the catastropic decison to enter WW1 and thereby screwed the nation for most of the rest of the centrury. Biggest impact for the wrong reasons. 2. Winston Churchill - crap at most things bar writing, but took the hard moral stance in the darkest of days when most wanted to cave in. 3. Margaret Thatcher - brought a sense of stability and self confidence back to the UK after half a century of decline but not without pain. 4. Attlee - welfare state, nationalisation and man from the ministry gave socialism a trial, but largely a failed experiment. Biggest achievement may have been to dismantle the Empire in India.
You miss out Lloyd George why? (Alongside overlooking the pre-war Liberal reforms under Asquith's premiership).
Because his pre-war reforms as an opener for welfare were when he wasn't PM and as PM he didn't have as big an impact as Asquith. C20 is basically the history of WW1 and the consequences ( 1914-89 all flow together ) and Asquith catastropically took us into a war we should have sat out. Nearly all UK difficulties in C20 stem from that decision. DLG was a war winning PM but negotiated a bad peace ( not really his fault though ) and the partition of Ireland, then he saw the Liberals obliterated. So where's the impact unless it's letting Labour out of the bottle ?
The way I see it being value is if Scotland votes for Independence, I suspect Labour and the Lib Dems will want a form of proportional voting system in place to stop England consistently voting Tory under FPTP.
Certainly a plausible scenario given the premise - but wouldn't it be better to take the 4.33 from Coral on Salmond pulling it off?
The way I see it being value is if Scotland votes for Independence, I suspect Labour and the Lib Dems will want a form of proportional voting system in place to stop England consistently voting Tory under FPTP.
Certainly a plausible scenario given the premise - but wouldn't it be better to take the 4.33 from Coral on Salmond pulling it off in the referendum?
... if Scotland votes for Independence ...
Therein lies the weakness of your argument, Richard.
Now Thatcher has gone, is there any reason left for Scots to vote for independence?
It is no suprise our James has been so quiet and reflective today.
The way I see it being value is if Scotland votes for Independence, I suspect Labour and the Lib Dems will want a form of proportional voting system in place to stop England consistently voting Tory under FPTP.
Certainly a plausible scenario given the premise - but wouldn't it be better to take the 4.33 from Coral on Salmond pulling it off in the referendum?
Labour won England under FPTP in 2005, 2001 and 1997. The idea that England is Tory is false.
Vulgarly modern history isn't my thing, as people know, but didn't the post-war consensus of Attlee lead to continual decline until it was smashed by Thatcher?
Mm, now into complicated academic argument involving teasing out the different economic effects of dismantling empire, aftermath of WWII etc. In a long view of economic performance the UK was in decline for most of the 20th century because it was coming off such a high point from the empire's peak.
But I was more talking about how influential they were (which is often a better question than how good they were, since that often moves into simply showing personal political affiliation. For the record I do think that the country at that time was too left-wing). Attlee was certainly highly influential as the post-war consensus demonstrates (sidenote, there is of course an academic train of thought that thinks the idea of a consensus is overplayed).
Mr. Eagles, the potential problem there would be if a Lab-Lib coalition has a UK majority, but not a UK-excluding-Scotland majority. Then they'd be gerrymandering the electoral system to suit their own ends. (That said, I'd be staggered if they put such a change through without a referendum).
This is the Labour party we're talking about, chutzpah is their middle name.
But Richard, we could be a mere two years away from a Lab/Lib Dem coalition, which could enact electoral reform by say 2016.
7/1 in a couple of years....
Yes, that side of the bet is OK. Might even be value, although any LibDems who trust Labour to deliver on that one would be exceptionally slow learners.
The way I see it being value is if Scotland votes for Independence, I suspect Labour and the Lib Dems will want a form of proportional voting system in place to stop England consistently voting Tory under FPTP.
How hard will it be to do that without a referendum? Having had one on AV, the precedent is set for changing the voting system.
We are always told, it is difficult for the change option to win. Would a (pro) PR Scotland be allowed to vote in any referendum? Are the UK public really as motivated by this as the agitating classes think they should be? While there is still a plague on all your houses, I don't think any change that is deemed to be for the political advantage of one section of the politbureau will garner support of a sceptical public.
Mr. Jonathan, 1997 and 2001 are rather special cases (landslides). In 2005 and 2010, had Scotland not been in the UK, I wonder how the numbers would stack up.
On the world stage, too, Mrs Thatcher continues to cast a long shadow. Her combination of ideological certainty and global prominence ensured that Britain played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union that was disproportionate to its weight in the world. Mrs Thatcher was the first British politician since Winston Churchill to be taken seriously by the leaders of all the major powers. She was a heroine to opposition politicians in eastern Europe. Her willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder with “dear Ronnie” to block Soviet expansionism helped to promote new thinking in the Kremlin. But her insistence that Mikhail Gorbachev was a man with whom the West could do business also helped to end the cold war.
all who followed him felt unable to dismantle what his government had set up.
Luckily, most of it was dismantled. The sheer extremism of the post-war Labour government never ceases to amaze me.
Of course, it's slightly unfair to blame Attlee. Mostly it was a bureaucratic extension of wartime planning, and I suspect a lot of it would have happened under a post-war Churchill government. Even so - nationalising road haulage, for God's sake?
The biggest mistake in retrospect was the nationalisation of hospitals. We're still suffering from that piece of ideology.
The Labour government was a product of its time, as was Mrs Thatcher's. But the NHS is still with us and any changes to it are still based on the free at the point of contact concept. The expanded welfare state that Labour also oversaw has yet to be dismantled. And we often forget another lasting legacy and one that has benefited millions of people: the creation of the new towns. Aycliffe, Basildon, Bracknell, Corby, Cwmbran, Crawley, Easington, East Kilbride, Glenrothes, Harlow, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City were all designated between 1945 and 1951, and gave inner-city, slum-dwelling families lives that they could not possiblt have imagined previously. A truly great achievement.
The way I see it being value is if Scotland votes for Independence, I suspect Labour and the Lib Dems will want a form of proportional voting system in place to stop England consistently voting Tory under FPTP.
Certainly a plausible scenario given the premise - but wouldn't it be better to take the 4.33 from Coral on Salmond pulling it off in the referendum?
Labour won England under FPTP in 2005, 2001 and 1997. The idea that England is Tory is false.
But a plurality in England has voted Tory in the last two General elections.
In this era, I think it could be very difficult for Labour to consistently rule England/Rump UK when they keep on losing the popular vote.
all who followed him felt unable to dismantle what his government had set up.
Luckily, most of it was dismantled. The sheer extremism of the post-war Labour government never ceases to amaze me.
Of course, it's slightly unfair to blame Attlee. Mostly it was a bureaucratic extension of wartime planning, and I suspect a lot of it would have happened under a post-war Churchill government. Even so - nationalising road haulage, for God's sake?
The biggest mistake in retrospect was the nationalisation of hospitals. We're still suffering from that piece of ideology.
The Labour government was a product of its time, as was Mrs Thatcher's. But the NHS is still with us and any changes to it are still based on the free at the point of contact concept. The expanded welfare state that Labour also oversaw has yet to be dismantled. And we often forget another lasting legacy and one that has benefited millions of people: the creation of the new towns. Aycliffe, Basildon, Bracknell, Corby, Cwmbran, Crawley, Easington, East Kilbride, Glenrothes, Harlow, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City were all designated between 1945 and 1951, and gave inner-city, slum-dwelling families lives that they could not possiblt have imagined previously. A truly great achievement.
I'm calling you on this SO, how could anyone argue Crawley is an achievement ?
"To what extent did a political consensus develop after World War II?" is, as Corporeal says, a classic essay question for, say, a history and politics student. I think the generality of it was a set of principles that seemed to fit 1950 but gradually and increasingly became to be out-of-kilter with the new reality.
I think looking back we might talk of a post-Thatcher consensus as well.
But Richard, we could be a mere two years away from a Lab/Lib Dem coalition, which could enact electoral reform by say 2016.
7/1 in a couple of years....
Yes, that side of the bet is OK. Might even be value, although any LibDems who trust Labour to deliver on that one would be exceptionally slow learners.
The way I see it being value is if Scotland votes for Independence, I suspect Labour and the Lib Dems will want a form of proportional voting system in place to stop England consistently voting Tory under FPTP.
How hard will it be to do that without a referendum? Having had one on AV, the precedent is set for changing the voting system.
We are always told, it is difficult for the change option to win. Would a (pro) PR Scotland be allowed to vote in any referendum? Are the UK public really as motivated by this as the agitating classes think they should be? While there is still a plague on all your houses, I don't think any change that is deemed to be for the political advantage of one section of the politbureau will garner support of a sceptical public.
As Mike keeps on telling us, the the Anti-Tory vote is very popular.
I'm sure a referendum that has a message of this is to stop the Tories running the country will be very popular.
What if the Tories get more votes than Labour but are booted out due to UKIP voting? Or are they wedded to FPTP forever?
'For ever' is a long time, but I'd be surprised if views changed as a result of 2015. Bear in mind that the experience of coalition has, for many people, confirmed what we've always said about deals done in smoke-free rooms; it's hardly an advert for changing to a system which makes hung parliaments almost inevitable.
I think the most likely view would be that Labour would soon become so gratingly unpopular that a Conservative majority in 2020 would be highly likely, even despite the gerrymandering in Labour's favour. That might be wishful thinking, of course, but it's pretty plausible, given Ed M's complete failure to even start preparing his supporters for the fact that some very hard choices will have to be made.
Mr. Eagles, I'm not sure a slogan essentially saying "Gerrymander the system to disadvantage one party" or another saying "Coalitions forever!" will be the best in political history.
What if the Tories get more votes than Labour but are booted out due to UKIP voting? Or are they wedded to FPTP forever?
'For ever' is a long time, but I'd be surprised if views changed as a result of 2015. Bear in mind that the experience of coalition has, for many people, confirmed what we've always said about deals done in smoke-free rooms; it's hardly an advert for changing to a system which makes hung parliaments almost inevitable.
I think the most likely view would be that Labour would soon become so gratingly unpopular that a Conservative majority in 2020 would be highly likely, even despite the gerrymandering in Labour's favour. That might be wishful thinking, of course, but it's pretty plausible, given Ed M's complete failure to even start preparing his supporters for the fact that some very hard choices will have to be made.
Although I would argue that one of the problems of this coalition is that deals have not been done in smoke free rooms - instead arguments have been carried out in the pages of the popular press.
The other day I was wondering if there was a 'natural' maximum term for PMs in the modern age. Thatcher lasted 11 years; Blair 10. Both were moved out by their own parties, not the electorate, although Blair's removal was somewhat more graceful.
Given the resentments that build over time amongst backbenchers who are not promoted, ministers who are demoted, and the general denudation a PM's authority suffers, is it feasible for there to be a future PM who lasts longer than 10/11 years in the role?
After ten years, there will be plenty of other people in the PMs party who will believe that a) they can do the job better, and b) it's their turn, and c) they have better support amongst the electorate. The Heseltine / Brown complex.
(Google Chrome tries to spellcheck 'Heseltine' with 'Heftiness'. Quite appropriate).
Mr. Eagles, I'm not sure a slogan essentially saying "Gerrymander the system to disadvantage one party" or another saying "Coalitions forever!" will be the best in political history.
Indeed, I should remember, that Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg united on the same side during the AV referendum.
But they were like Paullus and Varro to Cameron's Hannibal.
Never mind the Tories, what about the electorate, who voted to keep FPTP?
Surely they are the barrier?
@Carlotta, the electorate voted against AV. I voted against AV. I think AV is a stupid sop to centrist parties. I would, however, be prepared to vote for some kind of STV system.
What if the Tories get more votes than Labour but are booted out due to UKIP voting? Or are they wedded to FPTP forever?
'For ever' is a long time, but I'd be surprised if views changed as a result of 2015. Bear in mind that the experience of coalition has, for many people, confirmed what we've always said about deals done in smoke-free rooms; it's hardly an advert for changing to a system which makes hung parliaments almost inevitable.
I think the most likely view would be that Labour would soon become so gratingly unpopular that a Conservative majority in 2020 would be highly likely, even despite the gerrymandering in Labour's favour. That might be wishful thinking, of course, but it's pretty plausible, given Ed M's complete failure to even start preparing his supporters for the fact that some very hard choices will have to be made.
If the Tories lose in 2015 the subsequent carnage will be a something to behold. Whether as a party they will be fit to fight any election for a very long time is open to question.
I see your graph shows that people rate Brown more highly than Major. Strange when Major won a slim majority with over 14 million votes cast for Tories. It all went wrong following the election, but that was down to the b*stards, rather than Major. I am not an admirer of Tories, but Major was a decent chap.
As for Mrs T, I agree with Ken Livingstone that many of the problems the UK faces today can be linked to her terms in office. e.g reducing regulation of financial services, selling off social housing, without replacing it.
Thatcher will ascend to the pantheon now, as the divisions are forgotten and people seek a reassuring benchmark of political greatness and unquestionable achievement. It is human nature.
In about 30-40 years we will discuss her the way we discuss Churchill today, and the way Americans discuss Lincoln.
Perhaps Attlee would be the comparison.
Who talks about Attlee ? Nobody on the right and just a few devotees on the Left. Everybody across the political spectrum talks about Thatcher.
More people can remember the 80s! As time drifts, the Tories will continue to venerate her - just as the Labour Party venerates Attlee - and for everyone else she'll become another historical figure. Probably only Churchill transcends that and that's because of his wartime leadership.
Yes of course it's fresher but Thatcher was a world figure in the way Attlee was not. If we want to look at C20 PMs who had the biggest impact on the UK I'd go:
1. Herbert Asquith - took the catastropic decison to enter WW1 and thereby screwed the nation for most of the rest of the centrury. Biggest impact for the wrong reasons. 2. Winston Churchill - crap at most things bar writing, but took the hard moral stance in the darkest of days when most wanted to cave in. 3. Margaret Thatcher - brought a sense of stability and self confidence back to the UK after half a century of decline but not without pain. 4. Attlee - welfare state, nationalisation and man from the ministry gave socialism a trial, but largely a failed experiment. Biggest achievement may have been to dismantle the Empire in India.
You miss out Lloyd George why? (Alongside overlooking the pre-war Liberal reforms under Asquith's premiership).
Thatcher will ascend to the pantheon now, as the divisions are forgotten and people seek a reassuring benchmark of political greatness and unquestionable achievement. It is human nature.
In about 30-40 years we will discuss her the way we discuss Churchill today, and the way Americans discuss Lincoln.
Perhaps Attlee would be the comparison.
Who talks about Attlee ? Nobody on the right and just a few devotees on the Left. Everybody across the political spectrum talks about Thatcher.
More people can remember the 80s! As time drifts, the Tories will continue to venerate her - just as the Labour Party venerates Attlee - and for everyone else she'll become another historical figure. Probably only Churchill transcends that and that's because of his wartime leadership.
Yes of course it's fresher but Thatcher was a world figure in the way Attlee was not. If we want to look at C20 PMs who had the biggest impact on the UK I'd go:
1. Herbert Asquith - took the catastropic decison to enter WW1 and thereby screwed the nation for most of the rest of the centrury. Biggest impact for the wrong reasons. 2. Winston Churchill - crap at most things bar writing, but took the hard moral stance in the darkest of days when most wanted to cave in. 3. Margaret Thatcher - brought a sense of stability and self confidence back to the UK after half a century of decline but not without pain. 4. Attlee - welfare state, nationalisation and man from the ministry gave socialism a trial, but largely a failed experiment. Biggest achievement may have been to dismantle the Empire in India.
You miss out Lloyd George why? (Alongside overlooking the pre-war Liberal reforms under Asquith's premiership).
Because his pre-war reforms as an opener for welfare were when he wasn't PM and as PM he didn't have as big an impact as Asquith. C20 is basically the history of WW1 and the consequences ( 1914-89 all flow together ) and Asquith catastropically took us into a war we should have sat out. Nearly all UK difficulties in C20 stem from that decision. DLG was a war winning PM but negotiated a bad peace ( not really his fault though ) and the partition of Ireland, then he saw the Liberals obliterated. So where's the impact unless it's letting Labour out of the bottle ?
I was really referring to the reforms in terms of you not mentioning them for Asquith.
As for Lloyd George, he was the one negotiating the aftermath of WWI (and with Wilson and Clemenceau pulling in opposite directions had an important role). His actions crippled the Liberal party and changed the dynamic of British politics by catapulting Labour into major party status, widened voting massively, partition of Ireland, women's role in society.
Beyond that his social reforms after the war were pretty massive (although a number were later pushed back by the Conservative governments).
The other day I was wondering if there was a 'natural' maximum term for PMs in the modern age. Thatcher lasted 11 years; Blair 10. Both were moved out by their own parties, not the electorate, although Blair's removal was somewhat more graceful.
Given the resentments that build over time amongst backbenchers who are not promoted, ministers who are demoted, and the general denudation a PM's authority suffers, is it feasible for there to be a future PM who lasts longer than 10/11 years in the role?
After ten years, there will be plenty of other people in the PMs party who will believe that a) they can do the job better, and b) it's their turn, and c) they have better support amongst the electorate. The Heseltine / Brown complex.
(Google Chrome tries to spellcheck 'Heseltine' with 'Heftiness'. Quite appropriate).
It's 2 terms and possibly a third victory. After 2 terms you're bad news, the choice is then to go while in office ( to cries of lame duck so you only get one and a half terms ) or go for three and then leave shortly after while securing your legacy. We have yet to have someone who isn't tempted to overstay their welcome after their 3rd victory.
@JosiasJessop: I think you're right that 10 years is the maximum that someone can sensibly be in power. By then, they start to believe their own propaganda and/or take their eye off the ball.
Plus however good their policies, they are not very good at identifying - let alone dealing with - the problems their own policies may have created. So, for instance, while it was right for Thatcher to deal with overmanned inefficient nationalised industries, she was much less successful at dealing with or mitigating the human cost of the same policies. The very toughness which was needed led to the harsh, uncaring tone which so grated, however necessary the medecine.
Maybe what is needed is a deputy or other heavyweight to provide the qualities which the PM lacks.
Just to say I am officially the Labour candidate for an unwinnable Tory seat in Norfolk.Due to my disability I will be conducting a virtual campaign,from the 28th I will be cloudwatching in 80% temps.With any luck the WiFi people will go on strike and power cuts mean no heat or light. I will find out how things went from a monastery-not intending to stay. I was very much encouraged by the Electoral Reform Society report on STV in Scotland where the uncontested seats were becoming contested again.Of course had the council ward I am standing for was under the STV system all parties might have a fighting chance.Further encouragement to be gained by 5 or 6 choices in many wards.Labour has a full slate in the more rural areas like Norfolk and Somerset.Labour is also running 72 candidates in North Yorkshire-young Billy Hague territory.This is progress in itself. As the good Corporal said-"they don't like it up 'em"
The Labour government was a product of its time, as was Mrs Thatcher's. But the NHS is still with us and any changes to it are still based on the free at the point of contact concept. The expanded welfare state that Labour also oversaw has yet to be dismantled. And we often forget another lasting legacy and one that has benefited millions of people: the creation of the new towns. Aycliffe, Basildon, Bracknell, Corby, Cwmbran, Crawley, Easington, East Kilbride, Glenrothes, Harlow, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City were all designated between 1945 and 1951, and gave inner-city, slum-dwelling families lives that they could not possiblt have imagined previously. A truly great achievement.
But not achievements of Attlee specifically, in a personal sense. The NHS would have been created whoever won (albeit with a slightly different, and I'd argue better, structure under Churchill). The welfare state was designed by a Liberal under a Conservative PM. The New Towns were typical products of wartime planning, so were the National Parks and many of the other achievements.
The point about Thatcher was that she achieved such huge successes despite the establishment; she personally turned the country around. Attlee, in contrast, was part of a group implementing changes which were largely designed by bureaucrats during the war. It's a bit of a simplification (he had to do a lot of cajoling to overcome the medical vested interests), but I think an important distinction if you are comparing the greatness of prime ministers.
Thatcher will ascend to the pantheon now, as the divisions are forgotten and people seek a reassuring benchmark of political greatness and unquestionable achievement. It is human nature.
In about 30-40 years we will discuss her the way we discuss Churchill today, and the way Americans discuss Lincoln.
Perhaps Attlee would be the comparison.
Who talks about Attlee ? Nobody on the right and just a few devotees on the Left. Everybody across the political spectrum talks about Thatcher.
More people can remember the 80s! As time drifts, the Tories will continue to venerate her - just as the Labour Party venerates Attlee - and for everyone else she'll become another historical figure. Probably only Churchill transcends that and that's because of his wartime leadership.
Yes of course it's fresher but Thatcher was a world figure in the way Attlee was not. If we want to look at C20 PMs who had the biggest impact on the UK I'd go:
1. Herbert Asquith - took the catastropic decison to enter WW1 and thereby screwed the nation for most of the rest of the centrury. Biggest impact for the wrong reasons. 2. Winston Churchill - crap at most things bar writing, but took the hard moral stance in the darkest of days when most wanted to cave in. 3. Margaret Thatcher - brought a sense of stability and self confidence back to the UK after half a century of decline but not without pain. 4. Attlee - welfare state, nationalisation and man from the ministry gave socialism a trial, but largely a failed experiment. Biggest achievement may have been to dismantle the Empire in India.
You miss out Lloyd George why? (Alongside overlooking the pre-war Liberal reforms under Asquith's premiership).
Thatcher will ascend to the pantheon now, as the divisions are forgotten and people seek a reassuring benchmark of political greatness and unquestionable achievement. It is human nature.
In about 30-40 years we will discuss her the way we discuss Churchill today, and the way Americans discuss Lincoln.
Perhaps Attlee would be the comparison.
Who talks about Attlee ? Nobody on the right and just a few devotees on the Left. Everybody across the political spectrum talks about Thatcher.
More people can remember the 80s! As time drifts, the Tories will continue to venerate her - just as the Labour Party venerates Attlee - and for everyone else she'll become another historical figure. Probably only Churchill transcends that and that's because of his wartime leadership.
Yes of course it's fresher but Thatcher was a world figure in the way Attlee was not. If we want to look at C20 PMs who had the biggest impact on the UK I'd go:
1. Herbert Asquith - took the catastropic decison to enter WW1 and thereby screwed the nation for most of the rest of the centrury. Biggest impact for the wrong reasons. 2. Winston Churchill - crap at most things bar writing, but took the hard moral stance in the darkest of days when most wanted to cave in. 3. Margaret Thatcher - brought a sense of stability and self confidence back to the UK after half a century of decline but not without pain. 4. Attlee - welfare state, nationalisation and man from the ministry gave socialism a trial, but largely a failed experiment. Biggest achievement may have been to dismantle the Empire in India.
You miss out Lloyd George why? (Alongside overlooking the pre-war Liberal reforms under Asquith's premiership).
Because his pre-war reforms as an opener for welfare were when he wasn't PM and as PM he didn't have as big an impact as Asquith. C20 is basically the history of WW1 and the consequences ( 1914-89 all flow together ) and Asquith catastropically took us into a war we should have sat out. Nearly all UK difficulties in C20 stem from that decision. DLG was a war winning PM but negotiated a bad peace ( not really his fault though ) and the partition of Ireland, then he saw the Liberals obliterated. So where's the impact unless it's letting Labour out of the bottle ?
I was really referring to the reforms in terms of you not mentioning them for Asquith.
As for Lloyd George, he was the one negotiating the aftermath of WWI (and with Wilson and Clemenceau pulling in opposite directions had an important role). His actions crippled the Liberal party and changed the dynamic of British politics by catapulting Labour into major party status, widened voting massively, partition of Ireland, women's role in society.
Beyond that his social reforms after the war were pretty massive (although a number were later pushed back by the Conservative governments).
Plenty of impact.
Impact yes, but more than the others ? And while you are correct on Asquith as PM his disastrous decision of August 1914 drove all the economic, foreign policy and social changes of the next 75 years. If he had sat it out we would have been a much different country and probably had a lot more Liberal governments.
I think it's unlikely a Labour government would want to risk another referendum on electoral reform and it would be hard for the Liberals to insist on a fresh vote so soon after the last one. However it's quite possible that the next election will result in a crushing Tory defeat and Labour winning quite a large majority on less than 40% of the vote because of Tory voters defecting to UKIP. If this happens it would be in the Tories interest to drop their opposition to AV, which might perhaps then be introduced with all-party support. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.
I think it's unlikely a Labour government would want to risk another referendum on electoral reform and it would be hard for the Liberals to insist on a fresh vote so soon after the last one. However it's quite possible that the next election will result in a crushing Tory defeat and Labour winning quite a large majority on less than 40% of the vote because of Tory voters defecting to UKIP. If this happens it would be in the Tories interest to drop their opposition to AV, which might perhaps then be introduced with all-party support. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.
I'd say HoL reform is more likely to get an airing before tinkering again with the voting system.
The Labour government was a product of its time, as was Mrs Thatcher's. But the NHS is still with us and any changes to it are still based on the free at the point of contact concept. The expanded welfare state that Labour also oversaw has yet to be dismantled. And we often forget another lasting legacy and one that has benefited millions of people: the creation of the new towns. Aycliffe, Basildon, Bracknell, Corby, Cwmbran, Crawley, Easington, East Kilbride, Glenrothes, Harlow, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City were all designated between 1945 and 1951, and gave inner-city, slum-dwelling families lives that they could not possiblt have imagined previously. A truly great achievement.
But not achievements of Attlee specifically, in a personal sense. The NHS would have been created whoever won (albeit with a slightly different, and I'd argue better, structure under Churchill). The welfare state was designed by a Liberal under a Conservative PM. The New Towns were typical products of wartime planning, so were the National Parks and many of the other achievements.
The point about Thatcher was that she achieved such huge successes despite the establishment; she personally turned the country around. Attlee, in contrast, was part of a group implementing changes which were largely designed by bureaucrats during the war. It's a bit of a simplification (he had to do a lot of cajoling to overcome the medical vested interests), but I think an important distinction if you are comparing the greatness of prime ministers.
Fair points, I had not thought about it like that.
Tories always overcompensate for their guilt in removing Margaret.
There can be no overcompensation, tim.
I am minded of the words written by the second greatest Briton of all time:
If you have tears, prepare to shed them now. You all do know this mantle: I remember The first time ever Marg'ret put it on; 'Twas on a summer's evening, in her tent, That day she overcame the IRA: Look, in this place ran Hezza's dagger through: See what a rent the envious Meyer made: Through this the well-beloved Geoffrey stabb'd; And as he pluck'd his cursed steel away, Mark how the blood of Marg'ret follow'd it, As rushing out of doors, to be resolved If Geoffrey so unkindly knock'd, or no; For Geoffrey, as you know, was Marg'ret's angel: Judge, O you gods, how dearly Marg'ret loved him! This was the most unkindest cut of all; For when the noble Marg'ret saw him stab, Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms, Quite vanquish'd her: then burst her mighty heart; And, in her mantle muffling up her face, Even at the base of Winston's statua, Which all the while ran blood, great Marg'ret fell. O, what a fall was there, my countrymen! Then I, and you, and all of us fell down, Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over us. O, now you weep; and, I perceive, you feel The dint of pity: these are gracious drops. Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold Our Marg'ret's vesture wounded? Look you here, Here is herself, marr'd, as you see, with traitors.
I shall remember her as the prime minister who sold my place of work to two crooks who then asset stripped to their hearts content, stole my pension fund,put 3000 people out of work then fled the country
Comments
I'm content with my Scotland betting position.
Therein lies the weakness of your argument, Richard.
Now Thatcher has gone, is there any reason left for Scots to vote for independence?
It is no suprise our James has been so quiet and reflective today.
But I was more talking about how influential they were (which is often a better question than how good they were, since that often moves into simply showing personal political affiliation. For the record I do think that the country at that time was too left-wing). Attlee was certainly highly influential as the post-war consensus demonstrates (sidenote, there is of course an academic train of thought that thinks the idea of a consensus is overplayed).
We are always told, it is difficult for the change option to win. Would a (pro) PR Scotland be allowed to vote in any referendum? Are the UK public really as motivated by this as the agitating classes think they should be? While there is still a plague on all your houses, I don't think any change that is deemed to be for the political advantage of one section of the politbureau will garner support of a sceptical public.
On the world stage, too, Mrs Thatcher continues to cast a long shadow. Her combination of ideological certainty and global prominence ensured that Britain played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union that was disproportionate to its weight in the world. Mrs Thatcher was the first British politician since Winston Churchill to be taken seriously by the leaders of all the major powers. She was a heroine to opposition politicians in eastern Europe. Her willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder with “dear Ronnie” to block Soviet expansionism helped to promote new thinking in the Kremlin. But her insistence that Mikhail Gorbachev was a man with whom the West could do business also helped to end the cold war.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/04/margaret-thatcher
In this era, I think it could be very difficult for Labour to consistently rule England/Rump UK when they keep on losing the popular vote.
But, as I say, I think any change to the voting system would necessarily need a referendum to back it up.
Surely they are the barrier?
I think looking back we might talk of a post-Thatcher consensus as well.
I'm sure a referendum that has a message of this is to stop the Tories running the country will be very popular.
I think the most likely view would be that Labour would soon become so gratingly unpopular that a Conservative majority in 2020 would be highly likely, even despite the gerrymandering in Labour's favour. That might be wishful thinking, of course, but it's pretty plausible, given Ed M's complete failure to even start preparing his supporters for the fact that some very hard choices will have to be made.
Unemployment was actually higher when Thatcher left office than when she came in (9.5% vs 5.3% in May 1979)
Given the resentments that build over time amongst backbenchers who are not promoted, ministers who are demoted, and the general denudation a PM's authority suffers, is it feasible for there to be a future PM who lasts longer than 10/11 years in the role?
After ten years, there will be plenty of other people in the PMs party who will believe that a) they can do the job better, and b) it's their turn, and c) they have better support amongst the electorate. The Heseltine / Brown complex.
(Google Chrome tries to spellcheck 'Heseltine' with 'Heftiness'. Quite appropriate).
But they were like Paullus and Varro to Cameron's Hannibal.
Could it be that the overmanning and restrictive practises that so crippled businesses had all been swept away
As for Mrs T, I agree with Ken Livingstone that many of the problems the UK faces today can be linked to her terms in office. e.g reducing regulation of financial services, selling off social housing, without replacing it.
As for Lloyd George, he was the one negotiating the aftermath of WWI (and with Wilson and Clemenceau pulling in opposite directions had an important role). His actions crippled the Liberal party and changed the dynamic of British politics by catapulting Labour into major party status, widened voting massively, partition of Ireland, women's role in society.
Beyond that his social reforms after the war were pretty massive (although a number were later pushed back by the Conservative governments).
Plenty of impact.
Plus however good their policies, they are not very good at identifying - let alone dealing with - the problems their own policies may have created. So, for instance, while it was right for Thatcher to deal with overmanned inefficient nationalised industries, she was much less successful at dealing with or mitigating the human cost of the same policies. The very toughness which was needed led to the harsh, uncaring tone which so grated, however necessary the medecine.
Maybe what is needed is a deputy or other heavyweight to provide the qualities which the PM lacks.
I will find out how things went from a monastery-not intending to stay.
I was very much encouraged by the Electoral Reform Society report on STV in Scotland where the uncontested seats were becoming contested again.Of course had the council ward I am standing for was under the STV system all parties might have a fighting chance.Further encouragement to be gained by 5 or 6 choices in many wards.Labour has a full slate in the more rural areas like Norfolk and Somerset.Labour is also running 72 candidates in North Yorkshire-young Billy Hague territory.This is progress in itself.
As the good Corporal said-"they don't like it up 'em"
The point about Thatcher was that she achieved such huge successes despite the establishment; she personally turned the country around. Attlee, in contrast, was part of a group implementing changes which were largely designed by bureaucrats during the war. It's a bit of a simplification (he had to do a lot of cajoling to overcome the medical vested interests), but I think an important distinction if you are comparing the greatness of prime ministers.
Tories always overcompensate for their guilt in removing Margaret.
There can be no overcompensation, tim.
I am minded of the words written by the second greatest Briton of all time:
If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.
You all do know this mantle: I remember
The first time ever Marg'ret put it on;
'Twas on a summer's evening, in her tent,
That day she overcame the IRA:
Look, in this place ran Hezza's dagger through:
See what a rent the envious Meyer made:
Through this the well-beloved Geoffrey stabb'd;
And as he pluck'd his cursed steel away,
Mark how the blood of Marg'ret follow'd it,
As rushing out of doors, to be resolved
If Geoffrey so unkindly knock'd, or no;
For Geoffrey, as you know, was Marg'ret's angel:
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Marg'ret loved him!
This was the most unkindest cut of all;
For when the noble Marg'ret saw him stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,
Quite vanquish'd her: then burst her mighty heart;
And, in her mantle muffling up her face,
Even at the base of Winston's statua,
Which all the while ran blood, great Marg'ret fell.
O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over us.
O, now you weep; and, I perceive, you feel
The dint of pity: these are gracious drops.
Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold
Our Marg'ret's vesture wounded? Look you here,
Here is herself, marr'd, as you see, with traitors.
Now you may ask with good reason "What cuts?".