Thatcher and Attlee Best 20th Century PMs

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If that's the case, his ranking of Balfour above Bonar Law is a clear error.

[Ecthy]

Does Chamberlain get the low score for the failed appeasement or was he a sucker in general?

[Drogue]

What did Lloyd George get through when PM? All his good accomplishments were as Chancellor. Also what did Asquith do that warrants a 5? Sure, he was a good PM, but this is all about how well they implimented their policies.

Thatcher completely changed the political landscape of the UK, destroying union power and making capitalism far more acceptable and mainstream. Whatever the effects, this was a huge change in the way the UK was governed, and entirely in line with her own ideology. To me, Thatcher's the easiest 5, because of how much she changed towards where she wanted the country to be. On ideology I'd give her much, much lower, however.

[TheStinger]

Llyod George completely changed the way Britain approached WW1.

I would say Churchill didn't do much wrong in the 50's. He didn't do much in general and on the whole maintained the status quo which was probably important at the time to stop a left wing backlash which could have proved disastrous

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
If that's the case, his ranking of Balfour above Bonar Law is a clear error.

One historian, probably right-wing... yeah, I'm sure this list is to be taken seriously...

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Some would argue Chamberlin's policy was to avoid war until 1941 when the army would have proper armoured divisions and tactical bombers. Of course he failed this aswell but Chamberlin was not quite as naive about Hitler as some make out.

If so this was MORONIC reasoning and logic on Chamberlin's part.

Basically Hitler right off the bat with the Munich Agreement and his subsequent full occupation of Czechoslovakia gets Czechoslovakia's tank force as well as their capable munitions factories with more advanced tanks under construction. These details should have been apparent to Chamberlin at the time when he was making his calculations. The period in September of 1938 was the perfect time militarily to make a stand. Here's the biggest consequence of not doing so.

Following the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, from 15 March 1939, all tanks in service with the Czech Army were taken over, as well as those in production under export contracts. The Germans designated the TNHP the PzKpfw 38(t) and continued its production until early 1942. They ordered the manufacturers to increase the frontal armor to 50mm, and that on the sides to 30mm. A total of 1168 tanks of this type was built for the Wehrmacht, and saw service in Poland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and Russia, and formed a major part of the tank strength of Rommel's 7th Panzer Division during its rapid drive across Northern France in the 1940 campaign. During 1940-1941 the PzKpfw 38(t) formed 25% of the total German tank force, and its importance was therefore considerable, the vehicle being superior in hitting power to either the PzKpfw I or II.

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/czech.html

In the period in question, not only did the Czech army have its fortifications, but was actually quite capable. In particular they had around 300 of the highly capable for the time LT-35 tanks, along with quite a number of other tanks as part of their tank force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_35(t)

The German Tank force at the time consited of around 70 Panzer III tanks at most, and it wasn't much more than this for the Panzer IV. Most of the German tanks at the time consisted of the Panzer I, which just had machine guns and was utterly useless against other tanks, and the Panzer II, which still was far inferior to the LT-35 or other top tanks of other countries.

If France and the UK had stuck with Czechslovakia in September of 1938 and joined it in a war if Hitler didn't back down, you would have been looking at a relatively short and easy war with German being defeated that wouldn't warrent being called a world war. (This is if the German Military simply didn't overthrow Hitler when it became apparent that his rash actions had gotten them stuck in a hopeless war, and promptly seek peace.) Germany simply would have been vastly outnumbered as far as more modern tanks were concerned, and along with everything else, planes such as the Dewoitine 500 would have been available in large numbers and sufficient to deal with the Luftwaffa as it existed at that time. (Some early Hawker Hurricane's were also available by this period.)

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Drogue
Thatcher completely changed the political landscape of the UK, destroying union power and making capitalism far more acceptable and mainstream. Whatever the effects, this was a huge change in the way the UK was governed, and entirely in line with her own ideology. To me, Thatcher's the easiest 5, because of how much she changed towards where she wanted the country to be.

QFT

whether you agree with what she did or not, it's impossible to ignore the effect she had on britain and british politics.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Drogue
Also what did Asquith do that warrants a 5?

The birth of the Welfare State? The Parliament Act? Trifles like that? Depends on how much you value social welfare and democracy, I suppose....

It's also worth considering that Asquith's achievements were made against constant (and very dubious) opposition from the Lords. It was one hell of a struggle all the way. Thatcher had an easy ride in comparison.

Plus, of course, Asquith's party didn't have to go trying to desperately distance themselves from his legacy, as with Thatcher. Nor did he come in to a recession, make it worse, make it better, and then promptly blow it back into recession with a catastrophic 1988 budget. Nor did he sow the seeds of deep division over Europe, as Thatcher did.

[Odin]

WTF? I thought most Brits HATE Thatcher. And WTF is with Churchill being below Attlee?

[Drogue]

The birth of the Welfare State? The Parliament Act? Trifles like that? Depends on how much you value social welfare and democracy, I suppose....

Although the welfare state was largely down to Lloyd George, not to Asquith. I'm not sure if being PM at the time is enough for this criteria, if it was someone else's policies. I have to admit I'm no expert on the period, but I was under the impression it was Lloyd George who invented most of the welfare policies of Asquith's government?

It's also worth considering that Asquith's achievements were made against constant (and very dubious) opposition from the Lords. It was one hell of a struggle all the way. Thatcher had an easy ride in comparison.

Which isn't necessarily the question. The issue was whether or not he implimented his policies as well as Thatcher, now how hard it would be to impliment them.

Plus, of course, Asquith's party didn't have to go trying to desperately distance themselves from his legacy, as with Thatcher. Nor did he come in to a recession, make it worse, make it better, and then promptly blow it back into recession with a catastrophic 1988 budget. Nor did he sow the seeds of deep division over Europe, as Thatcher did.

But they're all comments about how good or bad a prime minister she was, not how much she did. The criteria here was how well that PM implimented their policies, not the effects of them. If you want to distance the country from Europe, sowing seeds of deep division is implimenting that, even if it proves catastrophic.

I entirely agree that he was a better PM than Thatcher, but I don't believe he changed the country as much nor impliment his policies as well, even though his policies (to me) are far more preferable.

[Drogue]

WTF? I thought most Brits HATE Thatcher.

They do, but that isn't part of this ranking. Well, around half do. A good quarter or so idolise her.

And WTF is with Churchill being below Attlee?

Aside from the war, Churchill didn't do that much else. Attlee created the NHS. When it comes to implimenting your policies and shaping the country in the way you want it, Attlee beats Churchill, IMHO. Churchill didn't have much opportunity to impliment his policies until the 50s, when he wasn't that good at it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The trouble with this ranking system is that it caters for the authoritarian leaders who try to avoid delegation. Stalin would probably have scored high on it. As a measure of "worth", it's useless.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Drogue

Although the welfare state was largely down to Lloyd George, not to Asquith. I'm not sure if being PM at the time is enough for this criteria, if it was someone else's policies. I have to admit I'm no expert on the period, but I was under the impression it was Lloyd George who invented most of the welfare policies of Asquith's government?

If you're going to mark Asquith down for that, you need to mark Attlee down for the works of Cripps, Bevin and Bevan. That was Attlee's greatest strength as a leader- he always picked the best people for the job, regardless of whether they agreed with him or not.3

To any sane person, that's a strength- so why mark a leader down for it?

[Blaupanzer]

Be careful of the criteria here. By this measure, effectively implementing a disaster gets one a high rating, while presiding over a prosperous, less-governed nation gets one a low rating. If "that government is best which governs least" criteria is applied, these ratings go right out the window. (Bringing in a dark shadow and a red herring here, by this criteria Hitler was one of the most effective leaders of Germany in the twentieth century. He advocated and brought about complete change in the government, the military, German social order, and foreign policy. I think one should include the ultimate results when measuring the value of national leaders.)

[SlowwHand]

Lot of difference between like and respect.