UK Prime Minister Poll

[vcczar 1,227]

New poll

[Guest]

All pale to Thatcher

[vcczar 1,227]

10 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

All pale to Thatcher

I don't like Thatcher, but I'm inclined to agree with you for once. This has been a rather lackluster group. 

[vcczar 1,227]

1. I think all are below average. Brown gets my vote by process of elimination. This isn't a glowing endorsement of him.

2. I'm going to say May, but ultimately, if Brexit proves a disaster, I'm going to change this to Cameron, who I think is principally at fault among these groups of PMs. 

3. I think the UK is unlikely to keep one party in power for more than 10 years if it can avoid it, regardless of the party. 

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

I personally didn't dislike May, and I get that she came into a shit show, but she failed multiple times trying to deliver the impossible (which took over her term) which in my opinion made her overall tenure as PM a failure.

[vcczar 1,227]

4 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

I personally didn't dislike May, and I get that she came into a shit show, but she failed multiple times trying to deliver the impossible (which took over her term) which in my opinion made her overall tenure as PM a failure.

Yeah, she didn't really get a fair chance to succeed. I think just about any PM would have failed in her spot, even Churchill, Thatcher, or Atlee. 

[vcczar 1,227]

@Patine might like this poll

[Hestia11 594]

The death of the Union is pretty much at his door. He sacked Mundell, ignored Ruth Davidson, the only credible and well-liked Tory leader north of England, and the SNP is privately delighted at this change of events. That's the reason I'm putting 1-2 years and he will be the worst UK PM out of those mentioned. The SNP will balloon to likely over 45 seats in a new election, and Plaid will be on the march as well. The Union is at stake here. 

[Reagan04 658]

Thatcher Churchill and Disraeli are my favorites. Blair I suppose is the best here but its really just a horse race for second worse between all of them. Gordon is the unqualified worst however. Cameron would be a close second for best and really I rate them on similar footing as subpar PMs. May will likely be better than Johnson ends up being.

[Patine 514]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

@Patine might like this poll

None of the British PM's of the 21st Century were very exceptional leaders, at all. In fact, the 21st Century has been a time, thus far, full of, with only a few exceptions, of lackluster, or even, in some very notable cases, outright criminal, world leaders all around, globally speaking.

[Reagan04 658]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

None of the British PM's of the 21st Century were very exceptional leaders, at all. In fact, the 21st Century has been a time, thus far, full of, with only a few exceptions, of lackluster, or even, in some very notable cases, outright criminal, world leaders all around, globally speaking.

Yeah Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump aren't exactly the creme de le creme of the chess world in a show with everything but Yul Brynner. Chirac is really all France has of quality for the 21st. Putin is a no go.

[Patine 514]

1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Putin is a no go.

Actually, if you set aside his style of governance and his "adversarial" stance to the West, he's been one of the strongest, most successful, and most effective leaders in the 21st Century, by very broad and generic measurements of leadership. Of course, he is an absolute monster, all-in-all.

[Reagan04 658]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Actually, if you set aside his style of governance and his "adversarial" stance to the West, he's been one of the strongest, most successful, and most effective leaders in the 21st Century, by very broad and generic measurements of leadership. Of course, he is an absolute monster, all-in-all.

Strength isn't an absolute good President Trump

[Patine 514]

1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Strength isn't an absolute good President Trump

Trump isn't a strong leader. He has a trait that is called "bravado" - a bluff of strength and confidence, with a demeanour that makes it appear realistic, but the strength isn't truly there. It is a trait commonly used by poker-players, diplomats, bullies, and Mafiasos (the latter of whom coined the term), among others. And, you are right, strength is not an absolute. But, Putin did bring his country back up from the utter bleeding hole of a mess it was when the USSR collapsed and during the whole of the Yeltsin regimes and reforged it back to AT LEAST a World Power, if not fully reprising Superpower status, and has actually made his country economically and politically functional and viable, if certainly not ideal. And given the crapfest Yeltsin left him, it's an impressive achievement in and of itself, even if the morality behind how he did it is QUITE lacking in many areas.

[Hestia11 594]

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

Actually, if you set aside his style of governance and his "adversarial" stance to the West, he's been one of the strongest, most successful, and most effective leaders in the 21st Century, by very broad and generic measurements of leadership. Of course, he is an absolute monster, all-in-all.

The Russian economy is in the gutter with no end in sight. I wouldn't say that he's been that successful with improving the average Russian's life.

[Reagan04 658]

45 minutes ago, Patine said:

Trump isn't a strong leader. He has a trait that is called "bravado" - a bluff of strength and confidence, with a demeanour that makes it appear realistic, but the strength isn't truly there. It is a trait commonly used by poker-players, diplomats, bullies, and Mafiasos (the latter of whom coined the term), among others. And, you are right, strength is not an absolute. But, Putin did bring his country back up from the utter bleeding hole of a mess it was when the USSR collapsed and during the whole of the Yeltsin regimes and reforged it back to AT LEAST a World Power, if not fully reprising Superpower status, and has actually made his country economically and politically functional and viable, if certainly not ideal. And given the crapfest Yeltsin left him, it's an impressive achievement in and of itself, even if the morality behind how he did it is QUITE lacking in many areas.

No what I'm saying is that the President seems to believe that strength is an absolutel virtue. He always praises Kim and Putin among his other dictators he likes for their "strength" that he admires "strength" and doesnt care what the so-called "strength" of the leader is being used for.

[Patine 514]

5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

No what I'm saying is that the President seems to believe that strength is an absolutel virtue. He always praises Kim and Putin among his other dictators he likes for their "strength" that he admires "strength" and doesnt care what the so-called "strength" of the leader is being used for.

Oh, I see. And yes, you're right. And certainly strength as a leader shouldn't be the prime trait, or even most important trait, in any nation that values civilization, law and order, due process, and legal limits on the power of governance over it's citizens in any meaningful mechanism.

[jvikings1 40]

Boris is the best for now (he also has t done anything yet).

Brown and May were both disasters.

Cameron was actually decent besides the European issue.

Blair was shaky at best.

 

If Boris delivers Brexit by October 31st, then he sets himself up well.  If not, there will be chaos with the Brexit Party and Lib Dems threatening the 2 party status quo (and the SNP regaining ground).

[RFK/JFKfan 11]

6 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

 

Cameron was actually decent besides the European issue.

 

This seems like a "other than that, how was the play Mrs Lincoln?" kind of statement. There's a very real chance that his decision to make the referendum pledge in 2013 (which he didn't expect to have it keep, thus making it even worse) may lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. It has already caused levels of political polarization approaching those seen in the United States.

 

Brown was worse for the Labour Party than he was for the country. He actually handled the biggest issue of his premiership (the financial crash) well. 

May was probably never going to be a success given that she doesn't actually believe in the thing that she was elected to implement. Regardless of Brexit's merits and flaws as a concept, big decisions and reforms need to be implemented by people who genuinely believe in them. Thatcher genuinely believed in privatisation, Bevan genuinely believed in a National Health Service, Churchill genuinely believed in defeating fascism etc. 

Blair, like Thatcher, simply stayed too long. Domestically, however, his government had the best record of any of the past twenty years, even if that's not saying much. 

As for Johnson, it seems quite likely that he'll go for a 'nuclear option' of holding a general election in the autumn. I suspect that the result will be similar to 2017, even after favourable opinion polls, thus destroying his authority and rendering him a lame duck. Michael Gove probably takes over in the summer of 2020 and leads the country to a 'soft Brexit'. This could all be hopelessly inaccurate. 

[LegolasRedbard 4]

1. Tony Blair definitely. Creating the national minimum wage, reducing homelessness and youth unemployment by 75%, created the human rights act, ending the Troubles and overall bringing Britain into the 21st century with 10 straight years of economic growth. Shows what Labour can achieve when they're actually in government, unlike the current party will ever be.

 

2. Brown. Coronated as leader without a single vote, he had the chance to prove his credentials in a snap election in 2007 which the polls suggested he would have won. He bottled it, and that was his first mistake. Presiding over the financial crisis and expenses scandal is what finished him. In some ways it wasn't his fault, but hes still a failure by any standards.

 

3. I think if boris delivers Brexit he'll secure his mandate, and if the rumours are true that he is planning to lose a vote of no confidence and schedule an election after the Brexit deadline to secure our exit on October 31st he'll definitely stay in power. Fail to deliver Brexit, however, and I reckon he'll end not only his career but also the Tory party as a whole.